n 


- 

ri 

i? 

CL 

.§ 

T3 

i 

^» 

*g 

IE 

„  "*» 

Q. 

a* 

1} 

-a 

f-       _y 

. 

— 

Ha 

:.  / 

45 

OL 

-  i 

J5 

ft 

o 

5 

O 

ft 

o 

a> 
c 
bfl 

<; 

w 

Eh 

<jj 

:§ 

o 

3 

00 

"& 

Ph 

^ 
CQ 

_Q 

*v 

■fit 

■o 

<a 

% 

<u 

,<5> 

a 

53 
2? 

Si 

*$ 

ril 

c 

SEJ2 

;       $ 

/OH  J 


SCRIPTURE    BAPTISM 

DEFENDED, 

AND 

ANABAPTIST    NOTIONS 

PROYED   TO   BE 

ANTI-SCRIPTURAL  NOYELTIES. 

BY 

KEY.  JOHN  LEYIWTOK 


M  Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John  indeed 
baptized  with  water;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost." — Acts  xi.16 

"  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  Me,  and  forbid  them  not ;  for  of  such 
is  the  Kingdom  of  God." — Mark  x.  14. 

"  Therefore,  as  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  con- 
demnation, even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men 
unto  justification  of  life." — Rom.  v.  18. 

"  Where  sin  abounded  grace  did  much  more  abound." — Rom.  v.  20. 


CHICAGO: 

PUBLISHED  BY  POE  &  HITCHCOCK. 

SOLD  AT  THE  METHODIST  BOOK  ROOM  AND  BY  THE  AUTHOR, 

MONROE,  MICHIGAN,  AND  BOOKSELLERS  GENERALLY. 

1866. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/scripturebaptismOO 


COjSTTEN"TS 


CHAPTER  I. 

Position  of  Anabaptists  Stated — The  words  Dip,  Plunge,  Immerse,  Overwhelm, 
not  Synonymous — They  give  us  the  word  Plunge  as  the  Synonym  of  Baptize, 
and  their  practice  is  to  Plunge,  and  Plunge  only — Their  favorite  arguments 
drawn  from  the  Baptism  by  John  and  that  by  Philip — John's  Baptism  not 
Christian  Baptism — Christ's  Baptism  different  from  both — Their  Arguments 
based  upon  a  mere  Assumption — Their  Assumption  is  shown  to  involve  pal- 
pable Absurdities— It  is  disproved  and  shown  to  be  a  mere  begging  of  the 
question 11 

CHAPTER  II. 

Direct  Argument  taken  up — That  which  God  calls  Baptism  shown  to  be  admin- 
istered by  the  baptismal  element  Falling  upon  the  Subject — This  is  claimed 
to  be  a  Fact — What  G-od  Asserts  Baptists  Deny — God  Baptizes  by  Pouring — 
This,  too,  is  a  Fact — His  Precept  and  his  Practice  Against  Plunging 19 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  idea  that  Christ's  baptism  and  that  of  Christians  are  symbolical  of  Christ's 
burial,  has  no  countenance  from  Scripture — It  is  absurd — Romans  vi.  3,  4, 
fully  examined  and  rescued  from  their  perversions .32 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  word  Sprinkle  is  now  taken  up— Its  use  and  design  shown  from  Scripture- 
Plunging  for  the  purpose  of  sealing  is  an  outrage  upon  common  sense 33 

CHAPTER  Y. 


The  assumption  that  en,  eis,  and  eh,  always  mean  in,  into,  and  out  of,  is  re- 
futed, and  the  argument  built  thereon  shown  to  be  worthless,  a  mere  begging 
of  the  question 42 


IV  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

A  fallacy  and  its  terrible  consequences  exposed— If  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  did 
go  down  into  the  water,  it  would  not  follow  that  either  was  plunged— The 
question,  "  Why  did  John  baptize  where  there  was  much  water  ?"  answered. 49 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  dogma  that  nothing  but  Plunging  is  Baptism  is  shown  to  involve  what  is 
Unreasonable,  Inhuman,  and  even  Impossible 57 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  appeal  to  antiquity  is  simply  superstition,  cruelty,  and  absurdity,  appeal- 
ing to  superstition,  cruelty  and  absurdity — Many  superstitious  and  absurd 
opinions  and  practices  specified  as  having  obtained  in  the  nominally  Christian 
Church  at  a  very  early  period — It  is  difficult  to  mention  any  one  religious 
dogma  that  is  more  clogged  with  difficulties  than  is  the  dogma  of  Plunging.. 60 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Summing  up — A  great  variety  of  Particulars  are  Specified— Plunging  was,  and 
is,  connected  with  Superstition  and  various  Errors,  and  is  doubtless  the  Off- 
spring of  Superstition — Proselyting,  causing  Proselytes  to  Renounce  their 
Baptism  is  very  serious — Unreasonableness  of  the  supposition  that  the  Ger- 
man Fanatics  discovered  what  all  the  wise  and  the  learned  both  ancient  and 
modern  have  failed  to  discover — It  is  the  duty  of  Zion's  Watchmen  to  save 
their  People  from  being  Proselyted — The  sincerity  of  the  Anabaptists  in  crying 
for  Union  under  certain  circumstances,  is  very  questionable  while  they  teach 
as  they  do — We  are  not  at  liberty  to  reject  a  Divinely-appointed  Method  and 
adopt  another,  especially  when  that  other  is  very  objectionable  in  itself — Nor 
is  the  Church  at  Liberty  to  leave  to  the  choice  and  whims  of  Men  to  Decide 
where  it  is  her  duty  to  Teach  what  God  has  already  Decided — Taylor's  Pic- 
torial Representations  showing  the  Ancient  mode  of  Baptism. . . 66 

CHAPTER  X. 

Bitter  opposition  of  Antipedobaptists  to  Infant  Baptism — Grounds  of  their 
opposition  examined  and  refuted 78 

CHAPTER  XI. 

It  is  shown  that  Infant  Baptism  takes  the  place  of  Circumcision — Early  Chris- 
tian Fathers  are  quoted — Testimony  of  Pelagius — The  Antipedobaptist  dog- 
ma one  of  the  most  modern  of  religious  errors — Baxter  is  quoted — Other 
Fathers  are  quoted 85 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

It  is  shown  that  Infant  Baptism  has  been  practiced  from  Apostolic  times — Not 
one  clear  case  of  Opposition  to  Infant  Baptism  till  the  Sixteenth  Century — 
Appealing  to,  and  Reasoning  with,  the  Antipedob*ptistj — Astounding  Facta 
Stated — They  cannot  tell  us  when  the  Practice  of  Baptizing  Infants  Com- 
menced— We  can  tell  them  When  and  by  Whom  opposition  thereto  Commeneed 
— Infant  Baptism  the  Uncontradicted  Practice  of  the  Church  from  Apostolic 
till  Modern  Times 99 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

The  objection  that  Infant  Baptism  is  incompatible  with  Man's  Natural  Rights — 
Bhown  to  be  ridiculous — It  contains  the  very  germ  of  Infidelity,  and  even 
Atheism — Objection  that  Circumcidon  was  a  Civil  Contract  is  refuted — Many 
absurdities  exposed 106 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

Direct  Scripture  proof — Infants  have  the  necessary  qualifications  for  Baptism-- 
Their  claim  more  clear  than  that  of  any  Adult — Romans  v.  12,  18,  19,  ex- 
plained— The  Infant  has  the  same  qualifications  for  Baptism,  that  Abraham 
had  for  Circumcision  ;  the  same  that  believing  Adults  have  for  Baptism — A 
close  connection  between  Infant  Baptism  and  Infant  Salvation  on  the  one 
hand,  and  between  Antipedobaptism  and  Infant  damnation  on  the  other — Re- 
marks on  the  moral  nature  of  Infants Ill 


CHAPTER  XY. 

The  Argument  from  Apostolic  Practice — The  Apostles  Baptised  the  Believing 
Father  and  his  House — Remarks  on  the  Greek  words  Oikos  and  Oihia — Tay- 
lor is  quoted — Some  further  remarks  with  regard  to  the  Origin  and  History  of 
the  Anabaptists 130 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

REPLY   TO    REVIEW   ON    THE    MODE. 

The  Reviewer  contradicts  himself  by  professing  to  believe  that  this  work  will 
Incline  many  to  embrace  the  Anabaptist  faith  after  he  had  told  us  that  Mr. 
A.  was  "  very  much  interested,  edified  and  comforted,"  by  reading  it,  so 
much  so  that  it  required  a  mighty  effort  on  the  part  of  the  reviewer  to  convert 
him  back  again  ! — He  again  argues  on  the  assumption  that  bapto  always 
means  to  dip,  plunge  or  immerse  ;  and  yet  afterward  denies  that  Baptists  ever 
assume  this — It  is  shown  that  neither  dip,  plunge,  dive,  immerse,  pour  or 
sprinkle,  is  the  synonym  of  baptize— He  asserts  that  bapto  is  never  used  for 


VI  CONTENTS. 

Christian  Baptism,  though  Baptist  writers  say  this  word  always  means  to  dip, 
plunge  or  immerse— The  word  ebaphe  used  by  the  seventy  in  Daniel,  is  again 
taken  up — What  I  say  about  plunging,  and  plunging  naked,  is  merely 
evaded— It  is  shown,  however,  that  the  more  intelligent  of  the  Anabaptists 
admit  the  difficulty  involved  in  the  assumption  that  the  baptisms  recorded  in 
the  New  Testament  were  by  plunging  ;  as  an  instance,  Robert  Hall  is  quoted 
— It  is  admitted  to  be  only  probable  that  New  Testament  baptisms  were  by 
plunging — Quotations  from  New  Translation  and  criticisms  thereon 161 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

REPLY    TO    REVIEW   ON   THE   MODE. 

The  Reviewer  fails  to  show  the  existence  of  an  Antipedobaptist  Church  before 
that  founded  by  the  German  fanatics — They  must  accept  of  t'.iese  fanatics  as 
the  fathers  of  their  system,  or  be  without  known  parents,  while  our  practice 
is  traced  to  the  Apostles — Having  shown  the  terrible  consequences  of  apply- 
ing to  infants  what  was  intended  for  adults  only,  the  Reviewer  utterly  fails 
to  avoid  those  consequences,  and  even  involves  himself  in  other  difficulties — 
He  even  denies  that  circumcision  was  a  sign  and  seal — It  is  admitted  that 
infant  baptism  was  practiced  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century — It  is  in  vain 
that  his  system  seeks  help  from  Tertullian — His  singular  criticism  upon  the 
testimony  of  Irenaeus,  and  the  reply  thereto — His  feeble  attempt  to  meet  the 
argument  based  upon  the  Greek  words,  oikos  and  oikia,  and  the  answer  there- 
to— It  is  again  admitted  that  infant  baptism  was  pract:ced  all  but  universally 
in  the  middle  of  the  second  century — Soon  after  he  asserts  the  contrary — 
Another  singular  and  entirely  unsuccessful  attempt  to  find  an  Antipedobap- 
tist society  before  the  German  fanatics — The  Donatists  and  Nova*ians  are 
claimed  as  their  ancestors — In  reply,  the  history  of  those  heretical  sects  is 
given — Bad  as  these  sects  were,  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  were  Antipe- 
dobaptists — Our  principal  arguments  are  either  ignored  or  merely  evaded — 
The  statement,  "  We  will  have  no  inference,  nothing  but  positive  command," 
is  examined,  and  its  weakness  exposed — It  is  with  a  bad  grace  that  the  Ana- 
baptists make  the  statement,  seeing  their  system  rests  entirely  upon  inference 
or  assumption 200 


Y* 


nSTTBODUOTIOIS". 


In  referring  to  the  dene-rain ation  with  whose  teach- 
ings I  join  issue,  it  was  necessary,  of  course,  to  use 
some  distinctive  appellation.  I  did  not  think  it  proper 
to  use  the  appellation  Baptist,  for  that  term  is  calcu- 
lated and  designed  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  denomi- 
nation to  which  it  is  applied  is  the  only  denomination 
tha.t  baptizes  at  all.  But  so  far  is  this  from  being  true 
that  it  would  be  more  in  harmony  with  truth  to  call 
them  Antibaptists,  seeing  they  are  opposed  to  the 
baptism  of  children,  that  is,  to  the  baptism  of  the 
whole  human  race  till  a  given  period  is  reached.  I 
have,  therefore,  used  the  appellation  Anabaptists,  as 
they  were  originally  and  properly  called,  because  they 
rebaptized.  I  have  also  used  the  appellation  Anti- 
pedobaptists,  because  they  are  opposed  to  the  baptism 
of  children.     And,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,   I 


8  INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

have  sometimes  used  the  appellation  Immersionists, 
though,  strictly  speaking,  that  is  not  correct,  for  they 
do  not  immerse,  as  we  have  shown,  but  they  plunge, 
and  plunge  only ;  but  we  did  not  like  to  use  the  appel- 
lation plungers,  though  it  would  be  a  truthful  appel- 
lation, but  it  has  a  strange  want  of  euphony  about  it. 
While  I  have  endeavored  to  bring  the  subject 
within  the  grasp  of  ordinary  capacities,  so  that  even 
the  Sabbath-school  scholar  may  read  and  understand, 
there  is,  however,  in  the  work,  matter  for  the  thinker, 
and  even  for  the  critic.  The  style,  too,  I  think,  is  so 
easy  and  racy,  and  the  matter  so  varied,  that  the 
reader  will  not  find  it  a  dull  book ;  especially  as  I 
have  introduced  a  considerable  amount  of  incident, 
and  historic  fact,  that  are  entirely  relevant,  and  inter- 
esting. It  will  be  seen,  too,  that  I  have  endeavored 
to  press  into  the  smallest  compass  everything  that  is 
of  importance,  and  relevant  to  the  subject.  Hence, 
I  have  divided  the  entire  work  into  two  grand 
divisions;  the  first  treating  of  the  mode,  and  the 
second  of  the  subjects  of  baptism.  To  make  it,  as  far 
as  may  be,  adapted  to  all  readers,  I  have  caused  most 
of  the  Greek  words,  though  not  all,  to  be  printed  in 
English  characters. 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  9 

In  view  of  the  things  here  specified,  I  think  the 
work  here  offered  to  the  public  really  meets  a  want 
that  was  felt ;  for  while  many  good  works  have  been 
written  on  this  subject,  and  I  am  much  indebted  to 
them,  some  of  them  have  been  too  verbose  and  com- 
plicated, while  others  have  been  too  meager,  so  that 
neither  kind  had  sufficient  clearness  and  point. 

The  first  edition  having  been  reviewed  by  an  advo- 
cate of  the  views  here  objected  to,  I  have  written  a 
reply  thereto,  and  that  reply  will  be  found  in  the  two 
last  chapters  of  the  book.  By  this  review  an  oppor- 
tunity was  given  me,  it  is  believed,  to  answer  every 
objection  and  argument,  of  any  importance,  that  our 
opponents  could  bring  forward.  So  that  the  reader 
is  here  furnished  with  everything  of  weight  connected 
with  this  subject,  both  pro  and  con. 

Finally,  as  I  said  formerly,  so  I  say  now,  if  any 
person,  after  carefully  reading  this  little  work,  will 
honestly  say  to  me,  "I  still  believe  that  the  views 
here  objected  to  are  the  right  views,"  I  here  promise 
that  I  will  cheerfully  return  to  such  the  price  of  the 
book,  and  take  it  back. 

JOHN  LEVINGTON. 

Monroe,  Michigan,  July,  1866. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM-THE  M#E. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Position  of  Anabaptists  Stated — The  words  Dip,  Plunge,  Immerse, 
Overwhelm,  not  Synonymous — They  give  us  the  word  Plunge 
as  the  Synonym  of  Baptize,  and  their  practice  is  to  Plunge,  and 
Plunge  only — Their  favorite  Arguments  drawn  from  the  Baptism 
by  John  and  that  by  Philip — John's  Baptism  not  Christian  Bap- 
tism— Christ's  Baptism  different  from  both — Their  Arguments 
based  upon  a  mere  Assumption — Their  Assumption  is  shown  to 
involve  palpable  Absurdities — It  is  disproved  and  shown  to  be 
a  mere  begging  of  the  question. 

The  position  of  the  Anabaptists  with  regard  to  the 
mode  of  baptism,  is  this.  They  say,  "Baptism  is 
neither  more  nor  less  than  an  immersion  of  the  whole 
body  in  water,  solemnly  performed  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Their  arguments  in  favor  of  this  position  are  usually 
commenced  thus,  by  their  writers :  "Baptism,  from 
the  Greek  word  JBaptizo,  or  Bapto — I  dip  or  plunge.'''' 
"  To  dip,  plunge  or  immerse."  They  also  use  the 
Word  overwhelm,  and  sometimes  other  words  which 
they  consider  synonymous  with  these.  Baptize,  dip, 
plunge,  immerse,  overwhelm.  It  is  assumed  that 
these  five  terms  are  synonymous,  but  we  deny  that 
any  one  of  them  is  synonymous  with  any  other  one 
of  the  five  terms.     It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to 


12  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

refute  this  unwarrantable  assumption,  seeing  it  is 
plunging  and  plunging  only,  that  is  practiced  by 
those  with  whom  we  join  issue,  nor  do  I  know  any 
other  word  in  the  English  language  that  expresses 
their  practice  quite  as  well  as  this  one  does  ;  submerge 
is  the  next  best.  Be  this  as  it  may,  however,  their 
practice  is  to  plunge  under  water,  and  this  and  this 
only,  they  assert,  is  baptism ;  and  they  say  the  Greek 
word  baptizo  means  this,  "neither  more  nor  less." 
It  is  necessary  that  this  should  be  distinctly  noticed, 
as  Baptists,  so  called,  seem  to  prefer  the  word  im- 
merse, though  it  is  a  somewhat  ambiguous  word,  and 
does  not  fairly  express  their  practice.  Inasmuch, 
then,  as  this  word  is  that  which  best  expresses  their 
practice,  and  as  they  claim  it  to  be  the  synonym  of 
baptize,  we  will  use  it  in  these  discussions,  as  appro- 
priately expressing  that  for  which  they  contend,  and 
to  which  we  object. 

The  most  favorite  arguments  of  the  Anabaptists  in 
favor  of  plunging  are  drawn  from  the  record  of  the 
baptism  by  John,  and  from  the  record  of  the  baptism 
by  Philip,  and  are  all  based  upon  the  assumption, 
that  certain  words  have  the  meaning  which  they 
attach  to  them,  and  no  other.  Now  we  purpose  to 
prove  that  the  reverse  of  this  assumption  is  true,  and 
will  thus  take  away  the  very  foundation  of  their  argu- 
ments, and  render  them  worthless. 

As  John's  baptism  is  so  much  relied  upon  by  the 
Anabaptists,  it  may  be  well,  just  here  to  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  his  baptism  was  not  Christian  Baptism, 
and,  consequently,  cannot  properly  be  claimed  as  a 
pattern   for    Christians    to    go    by.       The  following 


POSITION   OF  ANABAPTISTS  STATED.  13 

remarks  will  suffice  to  show  that  John's  baptism  was 
not  Christian  baptism.  1.  John's  baptism  was  "unto 
repentance,"  and  the  parties  baptized  professed  faith 
in  a  Savior  to  come.  2.  Christian  baptism  is  the 
initiatory  right  into  the  Christian  Church;  but 
when  John  baptized  the  Christian  Church  had  no 
existence.  3.  While  John's  baptism  was  "unto 
repentance,"  Christian  baptism  is  the  seal  of  justifi- 
cation already  received,  as  circumicision  was.  Hence 
when  those  who  had  been  baptized  by  John,  believed, 
and  were  justified  in  the  Christian  sense,  the  Apostles 
administered  Christian  baptism  to  them,  as  we  learn 
from  the  following  Scripture:  "Paul  having  passed 
through  the  upper  coasts,  came  to  Ephesus ;  and  find- 
ing certain  disciples,  he  said  unto  them,  Have  ye 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed?  And 
they  said  unto  him,  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard 
whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  said  unto 
them,  Unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized  ?  And  they 
said,  Unto  John's  baptism.  Then  said  Paul,  John 
verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  say- 
ing unto  the  people,  that  they  should  believe  on  him 
which  should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus. 
When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  Acts  xix.  1-5.;  see  also 
Matt.  iii.  5.  It  is  entirely  unnecessary  to  say  any 
more  to  prove  that  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian 
baptism.  And  as  the  baptism  of  our  blessed  Lord  is 
constantly  referred  to  by  the  Anabaptists,  who  tell  us 
that  we  must  follow  Jesus,  it  may  be  well  to  remark 
that  neither  was  that  Christian  baptism,  nor  was  it 
the    same    as  that  which  John   administered  to   his 


14  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

countrymen;  it  could  not  be  unto  repentance,  for 
Jesus  had  no  sin  to  repent  of,  neither  could  it  be  the 
seal  of  his  justification,  for  he  never  was  pardoned ; 
nor  was  it  the  right  of  initiation  into  the  Christian 
Church,  for  the  Christian  Church  did  not  yet  exist ; 
but  like  the  Jewish  high-priest,  he  was  thus  initiated 
into  the  priests1  office ;  it  was  also  the  sign  of  the 
baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  was  administered 
by  the  Spirit  "  descending  upon  him."  Thus  we 
might  fairly  reject  all  the  arguments  drawn  from 
John's  baptism  without  saying  any  more.  We  will 
not,  however,  rest  our  cause  here,  but  will  now  pro- 
ceed to  refute  their  assumption,  viz.,  that  the  words 
baptizo,  en,  eis,  and  elc  have  the  meaning  which  they 
say  they  have,  and  no  other. 

We  now  take  up  the  word  baptizo  /  and  here  let 
it  be  distinctly  noticed  that  the  advocates  of  plung- 
ing as  the  only  mode  of  baptism,  give  us  the  word 
plunge  as  the  synonym  of  the  word  baptize,  and  their 
practice  is  plunging,  and  only  plunging ;  nor  will 
they  admit  that  anything  short  of  this  is  baptism. 
We  have  nothing  to  do,  then,  with  the  words  dip, 
immerse,  overwhelm,  or  any  other;  their  use  only 
tends  to  deceive  ;  baptizo  we  are  told  means  to  plunge 
the  ivhole  body  under,  and  their  practice  corresponds 
with  the  assertion  ;  they  do  not  dip,  they  do  not  im- 
merse, they  plunge  only  ! 

The  question,  then,  is  simply  this :  Docs  baptizo 
mean  to  plunge,  "  neither  more  nor  less  ?  "  To  refute 
this  assumption  we  have  only  to  quote  a  few  texts 
where  the  word  occurs,  and  substitute  the  word 
plunge  for  the  word  baptize. 


POSITION    OF    ANABAPTISTS    STATED.  15 

Luke  xvi.  24.  "  Send  Lazarus  that  he  may  plunge 
the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water  and  cool  my  tongue." 
John  xiii.  26.  "  He  to  whom  I  shall  give  a  sop  when 
I  have  plunged  it."  Rev.  xix.  13.  "  He  was  clothed 
in  a  vesture  plunged  in  blood."  Matt.  xxvi.  23.  "  He 
that  plungeth  his  hand  with  me  in  the  dish,  the  same 
shall  betray  me."  Mark  xiv.  20.  "One  of  the  twelve 
that  plungeth  with  me  in  the  dish."  John  xiii.  26. 
"He  it. is  to  whom  I  shall  give  a  sop  when  I  have 
plunged  it."  Mark  vii.  4,  8.  "And  when  they  come 
from  market,  except  they  plunge  they  eat  not.  And 
many  other  things  there  be,  which  they  have  received 
to  hold,  as  the  plunging  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen 
vessels,  and  tables."  The  word  klinon,  here  trans- 
lated tables,  means,  more  properly,  couches,  or  beds  ; 
more  especially  those  couches  or  lounges  upon  which 
the  Jews  reclined  at  their  tables ;  these  were,  say, 
fourteen  feet  long,  more  or  less.  Now  what  do  you 
think  of  plunging  these  lounges,  or  tables  under  water 
before  eating  ?  The  idea  is  so  absurd  that  the  mere 
mention  of  it  is  sufficient.  But  this  is  only  one  of 
the  numerous  absurdities  implied  in  the  assumption 
to  which  we  object.  It  will  be  remembered,  of 
course,  that  baptismos  in  this  passage  is  rendered 
icashing  by  our  translators,  but  the  assumption  to 
which  we  object  will  have  it  plunging  !  But  we  pro- 
ceed. Heb.  ix.  10.  "  Divers  plungings,  and  carnal 
ordinances,  imposed  on  them  until  the  time  of  refor- 
mation." Heb.  vi.  2.  "Of  the  doctrine  of  plung- 
i?igs,  and  of  laying  on  of  hands,  and  of  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal  judgment."  What  think 
you  of  the  doctrine  of  plungings?     Matt.   iii.   11. 


16  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

"  I  indeed  plunge  you  with  water  unto  repentance  ; 
but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose 
shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear.  He  shall  plunge  you 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  If  the  advocates 
of  plunging  insist  on  the  substitution  of  in  for  with, 
then  the  reading  will  be  "  He  shall  plunge  you  in  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  in  fire  ! "  If  they  prefer  this  render- 
ing they  are  welcome  to  it.  But  we  think  men  of 
sober  judgment  will  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  both 
renderings  absurd  and  intolerable.  Yet  this  must  be 
the  rendering  or  the  assumption  to  which  we  object 
must  be  given  up.  "  Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee 
to  Jordan  unto  John,  to  be  plunged  of  him.  But 
John  forbade  him,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be  plunged 
of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me?"  Acts.  xi.  16. 
"  Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how 
that  he  said,  John  indeed  plunged  in  water ;  but  ye 
shall  be  plunged  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  Nothing  pre- 
vents such  language  from  being  blasphemy  but  the 
good  intention  of  those  who  use  it.  In  Matt.  xx.  22, 
23,  it  is  difficult  to  get  the  word  plunge  in  at  all ;  but 
if  we  substitute  the  word  plunge  for  the  word  baptize, 
these  verses  will  read  thus:  "Are  ye  able  to  be 
plunged  with  the  plunging  that  I  am  plunged  with  ?  " 
"  Ye  shall  drink  indeed  of  my  cup,  and  be  plunged 
with  the  plunging  that  I  am  plunged  with."  Mark 
i.  4.  "John  did  plunge  in  the  wilderness,  and  preach 
ike  plunging  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
John  xii.  50.  "But  I  have  a  plunging  to  be  plunged 
with;  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accom- 
plished." Acts  x.  37.  "  That  word,  I  say,  ye  know, 
which  was  published  throughout  all  Judea,  and  began 


POSITION  OF  ANABAPTISTS  STATED.  17 

from  Galilee,  after  the  plunging  which  John  preach- 
ed." Acts  xiii.  24.  "John  preached  the  plunging 
of  repentance  to  all  the  people  of  Israel."  In  Acts 
xix.  3,  we  read,  "And  he  said  unto  them,  Unto  what 
then  were  ye  baptized?  And  they  said,  Unto  John's 
baptism."  The  word  here  rendered  unto,  is,  in  the 
original,  eis,  and  the  advocates  of  plunging  rest  their 
arguments,  as  we  shall  show  by-anci-by,  upon  the 
assumption  that  eis  always  means  into  ;  now  let  us 
substitute  into  for  unto,  in  this  verse,  and  plunge  for 
baptize,  as  they  claim  we  should,  and  the  passage 
will  read  thus :  "  And  he  said  unto  them,  into  what 
then  were  -ye, plunged?  And  they  said,  into  John's 
plunging  !  "  Now  who  but  an  ignorant  fanatic  would 
charge  the  inspired  writers  with  talking  such  con- 
summate nonsense  as  this  translation  indicates?  And, 
remember,  this  is  the  correct  translation  if  the  assump- 
tion here  opposed  be  true ;  and  it  is  to  obtain  such 
a  translation  as  this  that  the  Anabaptists  have  got  up 
their  new  Bible  !  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  "For by  one  spirit 
are  we  all  plunged  into  one  body."  Once  more, 
according  to  this  assumption,  Rom.  vi.  3  and  4  will 
read  thus :  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as 
were  plunged  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  plunged,  into 
his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by 
plunging  into  death." 

We  think  we  have  now  given  plunging  enough  to 
satisfy  the  most  ardent  lover  of  plunging ;  nay,  we 
think  enough  has  been  given  to  make  the  most  ardent 
lover  of  plunging  sick  of  it !  We  beg  to  assure  the 
reader,  however,  that  much  more  of  the  same  kind 
might  be  given ;  what  is  here  given  is  a  mere  tithe  of 
2 


18  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

the  absurdities  involved  in  the  assumption  that  bap- 
tizo  always  means  to  plunge,  "  neither  more  nor  less !  " 
We  are  aware  that  the  better  informed  among  the 
Anabaptists  admit  that  bap  tizo  has  other  meanings  ; 
but,  notwithstanding  this,  their  arguments  are  based 
upon  the  assumption  that  this  is  its  only  meaning ; 
and  they  give  us  the  word  plunge  as  its  synonym  y 
and  they  practice  plunging  and  plunging  only ! 
Moreover,  we  deny  that  either  the  word  dip  or  the 
word  immerse,  properly  expresses  their  practice,  nor 
does  overwhelm,  for  you  may  overwhelm  a  man  by 
casting  abundance  of  water,  sand,  or  other  substance 
upon  him,  but  that  is  not  plunging,  and,  consequently, 
not  baptism,  if  the  assumption  under  consideration 
be  correct;  and  if  it  is  not  correct,  not  true,  as  it 
evidently  is  not,  all  the  arguments  which  assume  its 
truthfulness,  and  depend  upon  such  assumption  for 
their  validity  and  conclusiveness,  are  worthless ;  till 
the  point  assumed  is  proved,  all  such  arguments  are 
a  mere  begging  of  the  question.  In  conclusion,  we 
beg  to  remind  the  reader  that  the  word  plunge,  in 
its  different  forms,  in  the  above  remarks,  represents 
the  word  baptizo,  in  its  corresponding  forms  in  the 
original;  and  if  the  substitution  of  the  one  word  for 
the  other  involves  us  in  absurdities,  and  even  implies 
impossibilities,  as  it  evidently  does,  then  to  baptize 
does  not  mean  to  plunge,  and  the  assumpton  that  it 
does  is  not  true,  and  all  the  arguments  built  upon 
that  assumption,  are  worthless,  are  a  mere  begging 
of  the  question.  This  is  what -we  claim  to  have 
proved,  and  this  is  what  we  undertook  to  prove,  in 
this  chapter. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Direct  Argument  taken  up — That  which  God  calls  Baptism  shown 
to  be  administered  by  the  baptismal  element  Falling  upon  the 
Subject — This  is  claimed  to  be  a  Fact — What  God  Asserts  Bap- 
tists Deny — God  Baptizes  by  Pouring — This,  too,  is  a  Fact — His 
Precept  and  his  practice  Against  Plunging. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  the  direct  evidence  in  the 
case,  and  will  show  that  what  God  calls  baptism  is 
administered  by  the  baptismal  element  falling  upon 
the  party  baptized,  not  by  the  party  being  plunged  in 
that  element ;  and  will,  consequently,  prove  that  the 
mode  contended  for  and  practiced  by  the  Anabaptists, 
is  just  the  reverse  of  God's  mode. 

In  Daniel  iv.  33,  we  read  :  "  The  same  hour  was 
the  thing  fulfilled  upon  Nebuchadnezzar :  and  he  was 
driven  from  men,  and  did  eat  grass  as  oxen,  and  his 
body  was  wet  \ebaphe~\  with  the  dew  of  heaven.1" 
Now,  here  is  no  plunging ;  yet  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
baptized.  How  was  he  baptized  ?  The  Seventy  tell 
you  in  these  words  :  "  his  body  was  baptized  with  the 
dew  of  heaven."  Now,  everybody  knows  that  "  the 
dew  of  heaven"  fell  upon  his  body,  and  God  calls 
this  baptism.  Nor  can  the  Anabaptists  force  en9  or 
eis,  into  their  service  in  this  case,  for  neither  of  these 
prepositions  is  found  here ;    the  record  is,  that  "  his 


20  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

body  was  baptized  with  the  dew  of  heaven."  See 
Septuagint,  Chap.  iv.  30.  It  is  worthy  of  remark, 
too,  that  the  descent  and  influences  of  the  Spirit  upon 
the  human  soul  are  compared  to  the  descent  and 
influences  of  the  rain,  and  of  the  dew  upon  vegetation ; 
hence,  we  read  thus  in  Ps.  lxxii.  6 :  "  He  shall  come 
down  like  rain  upon  the  mown  grass;  as  showers 
that  water  the  earth."  And  in  Hosea  iv.  5,  we  read: 
"  I  will  be  as  the  dew  unto  Israel,  he  shall  grow  as 
the  lily,  and  cast  forth  his  roots  as  Lebanon."  This 
is  what  God  calls  the  baptism  with  the  Spirit,  and 
the  falling  of  the  dew  upon  Nebuchadnezzar  is  bap- 
tism with  dew,  or  water.  Yet  this  is  what  the  advo- 
cates of  plunging  despise,  treat  with  contempt,  and 
pronounce  no  baptism.  It  is  enough  for  us,  however, 
to  know  that  God  calls  it  baptism  /  and  that  he  calls 
it  baptism  is  a  fact,  an  indisputable  fact /  for  we 
give  his  words,  and  the  chapter  and  verse  where  they 
may  be  found.  And,  while  the  descent  of  the  Spirit 
is  compared  to  the  descent  of  water  in  the  form  of 
rain  or  dew,  we  aver  that  it  never  is,  and  cannot  be 
compared  to  plunging  the  body  into  the  water,  nor  is 
it  ever  compared  to  a  dash  of  water  overwhelming 
the  body :  such  figures  are  of  human  invention,  and, 
like  all  other  errors,  flow  from  the  carnal  nature,  which 
always  seeks  for  a  great  display,  and  loses  the  Spirit 
in  the  letter !  To  such  Jesus  still  has  to  say :  "  The 
flesh  profiteth  nothing,  the  words  that  I  speak  unto 
you,  they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life."  And  to  such 
Paul  says  :  "Are  ye  not  yet  carnal  and  walk  as  men?" 
We  will  now  produce  another  text  to  prove  that 
what  God  calls  baptism   was  administered  by   the 


THE  ELEMENT  FALLS  UPON  THE  SUBJECT.    21 

baptismal  element  falling  upon  the  parties  baptized. 
In  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2,  Paul  says:  "All  our  fathers  were 
under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea;  and 
were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea."  Paul  says,  "all  passed  through  the  sea;"  and 
Moses  says,  "The  children  of  Israel  walked  upon 
dry  land  in  the  midst  of  the  sea."  Now,  here  was 
no  plunging ;  the  people  were  "  under  the  cloud," 
and  "upon  dry  land  in  the  midst  of  the  sea;"  con- 
sequently the  water  with  which  they  were  baptized 
must  have  fallen  upon  them,  whether  it  came  from 
the  cloud,  which  was  suspended  over  them,  or  from 
the  sea,  which  was  "  a  wall  unto  them  on  their  right 
hand  and  on  their  left."  Here,  again,  was  no  plung- 
ing ;  the  Israelites  were  not  plunged  in  the  cloud,  for 
that  was  over  them ;  nor  in  the  sea,  for  the  waters 
were  "  a  wall,"  on  either  hand,  while  they  "  walked 
upon  dry  land."  Their  number  was  six  hundred  thou- 
sand men,  beside  women  and  children.  To  talk  about 
plunging  all  these  either  in  the  cloud  or  in  the  sea  is 
preposterous,  yet  they  were  all  baptized,  and  they 
were  baptized  by  sprinkling,  and  this  sprinkling  God 
calls  baptism.  This,  too,  is  a  fact,  an  indisputable 
fact!  Neither  were  the  Egyptians  plunged,  they 
were  overwhelmed  with  a  vengeance  y  but,  observe, 
God  does  not  call  the  overwhelming  of  the  Egyptians 
baptism,  but  the  sprinkling  of  the  Israelites  he  does ! 
Yet  Anabaptists  treat  sprinkling  with  sovereign  con- 
tempt, and  are  wont  to  say  of  those  who  were  bap- 
tized by  sprinkling,  "  They  were  sprinkled,  not  bap- 
tized" In  a  word,  that  which  God  calls  baptism  they 
say  is  no  baptism;  what  God  affirms,  they  deny; 
these  are  the  facts  in  the  case ! 


22  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

Having  shown  that  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  is  bap- 
tism, that  God  says  it  is,  we  now  declare  that  we  do 
not  find  a  single  text  in  God's  book  where  that  mode 
of  baptism  practiced  by  the  Anabaptists  is  enjoined, 
nor  do  I  remember  a  single  text  wherein  plunging  is 
called  baptism;  if  there  is,  let  the  advocates  of  plung- 
ing produce  it ;  but,  remember,  if  they  should  produce 
fifty  such  texts,  it  will  not  affect  our  argument,  for 
still  the  fact  claimed  remains  the  same,  viz. :  that, 
sprinkling,  or  pouring,  is  baptism — God  says  it  is. 
Nor  does  God  ever  plunge  when  He  baptizes,  He 
always  baptizes  by  pouring,  sprinkling,  shedding, 
falling,  as  we  shall  now  show. 

The  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  and  more  especially 
that  peculiar  baptism  which  belongs  to  the  times  of 
the  Gospel,  is  thus  spoken  of  and  promised  by  the 
prophets.  Isaiah  xliv.  3  :  "  For  I  will  pour  water 
upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry 
ground  :  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my 
blessing  upon  thine  offspring."  Here  the  sign,  water, 
and  the  thing  signified,  the  Spirit,  are  both  spoken  of, 
and  the  administration  of  each  is  said  to  be  by  pour- 
ing :  "I  will  pour  water,"  "I  will  pour  my  Spirit." 
It  is  quite  evident  that  the  pouring  of  water  mentioned 
in  this  text  represents  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit — 
the  prophet,  or  rather  the  Lord,  explains  the  one  by 
the  other.  The  same  baptism  is  spoken  of  in  the  fol- 
lowing prophetic  promise :  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass 
afterward,  that  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh : 
and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy,  your 
old  men  shall  dream  dreams,  your  young  men  shall 
see  visions ;  and  also  upon  the  servants  and  upon  the 


THE  ELEMENT  FALLS  UPON  THE  SUBJECT.    23 

handmaids  in  those  days  will  I  pour  out  my  Spirit." 
In  these  and  similar  Scriptures  we  have  what  our 
Lord  calls  "  The  promise  of  the  Father"  and  what 
He  and  his  apostles  call  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit. 
I  do  not  know  that  this  statement  will  be  questioned 
as  to  its  correctness,  but  if  it  should  the  following 
texts  will  put  it  beyond  question.  Luke  xxiv.  49: 
"And  behold  I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon 
you :  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem  until  ye 
be  endued  with  power  from  on  high."  Acts  i.  4,  5  : 
"  He  commanded  them  that  they  should  not  depart 
from  Jerusalem,  but  wait  for  the  promise  of  the  Father, 
which,  saith  he,  ye  have  heard  of  me.  For  John 
truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  In  these 
prophetic  promises  there  are  two  particulars  to  which, 
more  especially,  we  call  attention.  First,  the  thing 
promised,  baptism  :  "  Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Second,  that  baptism  was  to  be 
administered  by  pouring  :  "I  will  pour  out  my 
Spirit ; "  and  the  same  is  said  of  the  outward  and 
visible  sign  of  this  baptism,  the  baptism  with  water : 
"I  will  pour  water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty."  It  is 
evident,  according  to  these  prophetic  promises,  that 
baptism,  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  was  to  be  by 
pouring.     This,  too,  we  claim  to  be  a  fact ! 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  New  Testament  and  see  how 
these  prophetic  promises  were  fulfilled.  Acts  ii.  1-4 : 
"  And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they 
were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place;  And  suddenly 
there  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing 
mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where  they 


24  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

were  sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven 
tongues  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them. 
And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Observe,  the  parties  baptized  on  this  occasion  were 
all  in  one  room  and  remained  unmoved  till  baptized — 
there  was  no  plunging.  Second,  The  sound  "  filled 
all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting ; "  observe,  they 
were  sitting  when  baptized.  Third,  the  Holy  Ghost 
filled  the  parties  baptized ;  and,  fourth,  the  symbol  sat 
upon  each  of  them ;  and,  finally,  all  came  from  above. 
Now,  this  is  what  God  calls  baptism;  and  it  was 
administered  by  pouring,  by  falling,  as  both  the 
prophets  and  Jesus  Christ  said  it  would  be.  There 
was  no  plunging ! 

Now,  when  Peter  witnessed  all  this  he  "  Lifted  up 
his  voice  and  said  unto  them :  Ye  men  of  Judea,  and 
all  ye  that  dwell  at  Jerusalem,  be  this  known  unto 
you,  and  hearken  to  my  words  ;■■"."  This  is  that  which 
was  spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel,  And  it  shall  come  to 
pass  in  the  last  days,  saith  God,  I  will  pour  out  my 
Spirit  upon  all  flesh;  "  "  And  on  my  servants,  and  on 
my  handmaidens,  I  will  pour  out,  in  those  days,  of  my 
Spirit."  Here  the  Apostle  Peter  declares  that  the 
prophetic  promise,  quoted  above,  the  promise. of  the 
Father,  was  fulfilled  by  this  pentecostal  baptism  of 
the  Spirit ;  and  this  baptism  was  by  pouring,  as  the 
foregoing  prophecy  said  it  would  be. 

Here  let  it  be  remembered  that  the  Anabaptists 
assert,  that  baptizo  means  to  plunge,  and  that  it  means 
"neither  more  nor  less;  "  hence  they  practice  plung- 
ing, and  plunging  only,  and  assert  that  pouring, 
sprinkling,  is  no  baptism  !     But  it  is  an  indispensable 


THE  ELEMENT  FALLS  UPON  THE  SUBJECT.    25 

fact  that  the  Spirit  was  poured  out  and  fell  upon  the 
discpies,  upon  the  day  of  Pentecost  while  they  were 
sitting  !  And  it  is  a  fact  equally  indisputable,  that 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  the  whole  Christian 
Church  from  then  till  now,  call  this  baptism !  Here, 
then,  is  baptism  without  plunging ;  here  is  baptism  by 
pouring ;  let  Anabaptists  pronounce  it  no  baptism  if 
they  dare  !  If  they  do,  they  contradict  Jesus  and  His 
apostles,  together  with  those  who  were  eye  and  ear 
witnesses  of  the  facts,  as  well  as  the  whole  Christian 
Church  from  then  till  now !  And  if  they  admit  that 
this  is  baptism,  they  thereby  admit  that  baptism  is 
administered  by  pouring — administered,  by  the  baptis- 
mal element  falling  upon  the  parties  baptized ;  and  by 
this  admission  they  concede  all  we  claim,  and  give  up 
the  controversy!  Upon  one  of  the  horns  of  this 
dilemma  we  suspend  all  the  opposers  of  baptism  by 
pouring  •  they  may  choose  which  they  please,  for  either 
is  fatal  to  their  cause,  and  they  must  choose  one  or 
the  other  !  If  they  deny  that  this  is  baptism,  they  are 
infidels,  for  Jesus  and  His  apostles  say  it  is ;  and  if 
~they  admit  that  pouring  is  baptism,  they  admit  all  we 
claim,  and  the  controversy  is  at  an  end. 

But  knowing  the  obtuseness  of  those  who  will  not 
admit  of  anything  short  of  plunging  for  baptism,  we 
will  add  fact  to  fact,  and  text  to  text,  if  by  any  means 
we  may  convince  them  of  their  error,  and  lead  them 
to  an  acknowledgment  of  the  truth. 

In  Acts  xi.    15-1 1,  the  baptism  at  the  house   of 

Cornelius  is  thus  recorded  by  Peter :   "  And  as  I  began 

to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  upon  them,  as  upon 

us  at  the  beginning.     Then  remembered  I  the  word 

3 


26  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized 
with  water ;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Forasmuch  then  as  God  gave  them  the  like 
gift  as  He  did  unto  us,  who  believed  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  what  was  I,  that  I  could  withstand 
God?" 

Here  let  the  following  particulars  be  noticed.  1. 
God  baptized,  on  this  occasion,  at  the  house  of  Corne- 
lius, in  the  same  way  that  He  baptized  at  Jerusalem, 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  "  The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on 
them  as  He  did  on  us  at  the  beginning."  In  each 
case  the  baptismal  element  fell  upon  them — they  were 
not  plunged  in  it.  2.  The  administration  in  each 
case  is  called  baptism.  John  baptized,  and  God  bap- 
tized. 3.  The  latter  reminded  Peter  of  the  former ; 
therefore,  as  we  know  that  the  latter  was  by  pouring, 
we  infer  that  the  mode  in  the  former  case  was  the 
same,  for  pouring  could  not  remind  any  one  of  plung- 
ing. If  a  Baptist  should  see  one  baptizing  another 
by  pouring,  would  he  say  that  it  reminded  him  of 
John  baptizing  by  plunging  in  Jordan?  And  if  such 
an  association  of  ideas  in  the  mind  of  a  modern  Bap- 
tist would  be  considered  absurd,  and  even  impossible, 
let  such  admit  that  it  would  be  equally,  absurd  and 
impossible  in  the  mind  of  Peter.  Thus  we  are  forced 
to  admit  that  John's  baptism  loith  water,  was  similar 
to  God's  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  charge 
Peter  with  an  association  of  ideas  at  once  absurd  and 
impossible  !  Moreover,  we  know  that  God  baptized 
by  pouring,  and  we  defy  any  man  to  prove  that  John 
baptized  by  plunging!  Seeing,  then,  that  the  latter 
is  unknown,  to  say  the  least,  and  the  former  confes- 


THE  ELEMENT  FALLS  UPON  THE  SUBJECT.    27 

sedly  known,  common  sense  says  follow  the  known 
rather  than  the  unknown  /  follow  what  we  know  to 
be  God's  mode  of  baptizing  rather  than  what  we  do 
not  know  to  be  Johns  mode  !  It  follows,  then,  it 
inevitably  follows,  that  we  have  this  advantage  over 
the  immersionists  ;  we  follow  what  we  know  to  be 
God's  mode  of  baptizing,  they  follow  what  they  can- 
not prove  to  be  John's  mode.  And  even  if  they  could 
prove  that  John  administered,  the  rite  by  plunging, 
which  they  can  not  do,  still  they  must  concede  to  us 
all  we  claim,  namely :  that  pouring  or  sprinkling 
properly  administered  is  baptism,  fok  God  says  it  is. 
And  even  though  they  could  prove  that  the  apostles 
administered  baptism  by  plunging,  which  they  can 
not,  still  the  fact  remains,  sprinkling  or  pouring  pro- 
perly administered  is  baptism,  for  God  says  it  is,  and 
by  pouring,  He  Himself  has  invariably  administered 
baptism.  At  best,  the  claim  of  the  Anabaptists  rests 
upon  inference,  conjecture,  or  assumption  ;  ours  upon 
the  precept  and  practice  of  the  Almighty.  Nor 
would  it  avail  if  the  Anabaptists  could  prove  that 
John  baptized  by  plunging,  for  it  would  not  follow 
that  we  should,  seeing  his  was  not  Christian  baptism, 
as  we  have  already  shown.  It  follows,  finally,  that 
the  Anabaptists  must  concede  that  we  are  right, 
unless  they  can  prove  that  God  is  wrong,  for  both  His 
teaching  and  His  practice  are  in  favor  of  sprinkling 
and  pouring.  This  is  fact,  not  conjecture,  not  mere 
inference,  not  mere  assumption ! 

It  really  does  appear  to  us  that  it  would  be  difficult, 
very  difficult,  even  to  conceive  of  argument  more 
complete  than  is  our  argument  in  favor  of  baptism 
by  sprinkling  or  pouring. 


28  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

We  have  shown  on  the  testimony  of  God's  own 
word,  that  cur  mode  of  baptizing  is  God's  mode, 
while  the  Anabaptists  cannot  show  that  plunging  was 
John's  mode ;  we  say  they  cannot ;  it  is  not  possible 
for  them  to  do  so.  And  even  if  they  could,  that 
would  not  prove  that  plunging  is  the  right,  much  less 
the  only  mode  of  Christian  baptism ;  nor  would  it 
affect  our  position  at  all,  for  still  it  would  remain  a 
fact,  that  our  mode  is  God's  mode,  and  that  pouring 
or  sprinkling  properly  administered,  is  baptism,  for 
God  says  it  is ;  though  Anabaptists  are  bold  enough 
to  assert  that  it  is  not. 

But  immersionists  even  attempt  to  make  it  appear 
that  the  baptism  "  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  on  the  clay 
of  Pentecost,  was  by  immersion.  They  say  the  Holy 
Ghost  filled  the  place,  therefore  all  the  people  in  the 
place  were  immersed  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  pas- 
sage referred  to  is  Acts  ii.  2,  and.  reads  thus  :  "  And. 
suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a 
rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  (the  sound  not  the  Holy 
Ghost)  filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting. 
And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues  like 
as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them.  And  they 
were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Here  are  four 
particulars  to  which  we  call  attention.  1.  The  sound 
filled  the  house  where  they  were  sitting.  2.  The 
disciples  were  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  3.  The 
symbol  sat  upon  each  of  them.  4.  And  all  came 
from  heaven,  fell  upon,  sat  upon,  icas  shed  forth, 
filled  them.  Here  was  no  plunging,  nor  anything 
like  it.  The  sound  came  from  above  and  filled  the 
place  ;  the  spirit  came  from,  above  and  filled  the  dis- 


TIIE    ELEMENT    FALLS    UPON    THE     SUBJECT.         29 

ciples;  and  the  symbol  came  from  aboce  and  sat 
upon  each  of  them  /  so  that  the  mode  here,  also,  is 
just  the  reverse  of  that  claimed  by  the  immersion  is  ts  : 
all  came  from  above  and  fell  upon  them ;  they  were 
not  plunged  into  anything  !  And  this  is  what  God 
calls  baptism.  Defiant  of  all  this,  however,  im- 
mcrsionists  assert  that  pouring ',"  sprinkling,  falling, 
is  no  baptism.  God  says  it  is,  they  say  it  is  not. 
God  affirms,  they  deny.  These  are  the  facts  in  the 
case. 

We  will  now  group  together  those  terms  which 
God  uses  in  reference  to,  and  in  connection  with,  bap- 
tism, and  which,  it  will  be  seen,  absolutely  exclude 
the  idea  of  plunging  in  the  administration  of  that 
ordinance. 

John  i.  32  :  "  And  John  bare  record,  saying,  I  saw 
the  Spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a  dove,  and  it 
abode  upon  him."  Luke  xxiv.  49:  "And  behold  I 
send  the  promise  of  My  Father  upon  you  :  but  tarry 
ye  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  until  ye  be  endued  with 
power  from  on  high"  When  God  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Peter  said : 
"  This  is  that  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel, 
And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  saith  God, 
I  wWlpour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh."  See  Acts 
ii.  16,  17.  Also  at  verse  33  we  read:  "Therefore 
being  at  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having 
received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
he  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye  now  see  and  hear." 
Acts  x.  44:  "  While  Peter  yet  spake  these  words  the 
Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the  word." 
Verse  45  :  "  On  the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the 


30  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Acts  xi.  15:  "The  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning."  Titus 
iii.  5,  6:  "  But  according  to  His  mercy  he  saved  us,  by 
the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;  which  He  shed  on  us  abundantly." 
Acts  i.  5  :  "  For  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but 
ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost," 

Now  it  is  an  indisputable  fact  that  the  baptism  here 
spoken  of  was  administered  by  descending,  shedding, 
falling,  pouring  ;  not  by  plunging  !  And,  observe, 
this  baptism  which  was  administered  by  pouring,  is 
spoken  of  in  connection  with  John's  baptism:  '-'For 
John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost."  To  say  that  Christ 
plunged  the  people  in  the  Holy  Ghost  would  be 
utterly  intolerable,  if  not  blasphemous.  And  we  have 
no  authority  to  use  different  terms  in  each  case ;  God 
does  not ;  the  terms  which  He  uses  to  express  John's 
administration  are  the  very  same  that  He  uses  to 
express  his  own.  John  baptized  with  water,  He  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  Therefore,  as  we  know  that  God 
baptized  by  pouring,  we  have  no  right  to  assume 
that  John  or  the  apostles  baptized  by  plunging,  and 
no  man  living  can  prove  that  they  did  !  And,  observe, 
the  terms  here  quoted  refer  both  to  the  outward  and 
the  inward  baptism  ;  the  outward  and  the  inward  seal- 
ing. The  symbol,  as  well  as  the  thing  signified,  fell 
upon  them.  But  the  advocates  of  plunging  will  have 
the  party  plunged  in  the  symbol,  The  idea  is  alike 
absurd  and  unscriptural,  and  therefore  could  never 
proceed  from  God.  It  certainly  is  the  offspring  of 
ignorance  and  superstition.  Moreover,  there  is  nothing 


THE    ELEMENT    FALLS    TirON     THE     SUBJECT.       31 

in  religion,  absolutely  nothing,  of  which  plunging  is 
the  symbol.  But  pouring  is  most  strikingly  symboli- 
cal. Hence,  as  a  symbol  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  it  has  been  practiced  from  time  immemorial. 
Oil,  it  is  well  known,  was  poured  upon  the  heads  of 
high  functionaries,  as  symbolical  of  the  Spirit's 
descent  upon  them.  But  who  ever  thought  of  plung- 
ing them  in  the  oil  to  signify  that  thing!  The  fact 
is,  the  more  I  investigate  this  subject,  the  more  I 
become  convinced  that  plunging  for  the  purpose  of 
administering  Christian  baptism  is  of  humaninvention; 
I  verily  believe  that  God  never  appointed  it,  and  I 
am  sure  no  man  can  prove  that  he  did  ;  but  a  child 
can  prove  that  he  appointed  pouring  and  sprinkling ', 
just  as  soon  as  he  is  capable  of  reading  God's  book, 
for  there  the  fact  is  written  so  plainly  that  he  that 
runs  may  read.  And,  we  may  add,  it  is  not  likely 
that  God  would  appoint  \>o\h  pouring  and  plunging 
as  symbolical  of  one  and  the  same  thing,  for  they  are 
entirely  dissimilar. 


CHAPTER    III. 

The  idea  that  Christ's  baptism  and  that  of  Christians  are  symboli- 
cal of  Christ's  burial,  has  no  countenance  from  Scripture — It  is 
absurd — Romans  vi.  3,  4  fully  examined  and  rescued  from  their 
perversions. 

I  am  aware  immersionists  would  have  us  believe 
that  a  plunge  under  water  is  an  emblem  of  the  burial 
of  Christ's  body.  This  idea  they  attempt  to  express 
in  the  following  puerile  lines : 

"In  Jordan's  flood  the  prophet  stands, 

Immersing  the  returning  Jews  ; 
The  Son  of  God  the  rite  demands, 

Nor  dare  the  Holy  Man  refuse  ; 
But  plunges  him  beneath  the  wave, 

An  emblem  of  his  future  grave ; 
Ye  heavens,  behold  the  Savior  lie, 

Beneath  the  flood  from  human  eye." 

In  Matt,  xxvii.  60,  we  are  told  that  "Joseph  took 
the  body  of  Jesus  and  laid  it  in  his  own  new  tomb, 
which  he  had  hewn  out  in  the  rock."  And  immersion- 
ists tell  us  that  John  plunged  the  living  Savior  in  the 
river  Jordan  as  an  emblem  of  this  transaction;  and 
they  will  have  us  all  plunged  under  water  for  the  same 
purpose!  Truly  it  requires  a  marvelous  stretch  of 
imagination  to  discover  a  resemblance  between  a  dead 


NOT    SYMBOLICAL     OF     CHEIST'S     BURIAL.  33 

body  being  "wrapped  in  a  clean  linen  cloth"  and 
laid  in  the  cavity  of  a  rock,  and  a  living  man  walking 
into  a  river  and  being  plunged  under  the  water  and 
lifted  up  again  !  They  certainly  must  be  hard  up  for 
a  case  of  resemblance  who  seek  it  here ;  and  that 
they  seek  it  here  is  sufficient  proof  of  the  truth  of  the 
statement  just  made,  viz. :  that  there  is  nothing  in 
religion  of  which  a  sudden  plunge  under  water  is  the 
type ;  for,  if  there  was  anything  of  which  it  is  the 
most  feeble  type,  they  would  never  attempt  to  per- 
suade us  that  it  is  an  emblem  of  a  dead  body  being 
laid  in  the  cavity  of  a  rock  ;  for  between  these  two 
transactions  there  is  simply  no  resemblance  at  all. 
Moreover,  we  are  nowhere  taught  in  Scripture  that 
the  design  of  baptism  is  to  symbolize  Christ's  body 
being  laid  in  the  tomb. 

But  immersionists  think,  or  pretend  to  think,  that 
Paul  favors  this  view,  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  The  whole  pas- 
sage reads  thus :  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us 
as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into 
his  death?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by 
baptism  into  death :  That  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we 
also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we  have 
been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death, 
we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection : 
knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him, 
that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  hence- 
forth we  should  not  serve  sin." 

Immersionists  say,  that,  to  be  baptized  is  to  be 
plunged,  and  that  the  word  "  means  neither  more  nor 
less."     Hence  they  would  read  this  passage  thus: 


31  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

"  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  ns  as  were  plunged 
into  Jesus  Christ,  were  plunged  into  his  death  ?  " 
Such  language  is,  of  course,  utterly  intolerable: 
hence  it  is  evident  that  to  baptize  does  not  mean  to 
plunge ;  and  it  is  equally  evident  that  the  apostle  in 
this  passage  has  no  reference  at  all  to  the  mode  of 
baptism.  Therefore,  as  immersionists  build  their 
argument  upon  this  assumption,  the  foundation  being 
taken  away  the  argument  becomes  worthless,  or  rather 
is  no  argument  at  all.  Of  this  difficulty  they  evidently 
are  conscious,  for  although  the  apostle  uses  three 
figures  in  the  same  connection,  immersionists  never 
notice  any  but  one  of  them,  viz.,  that  of  burying  ; 
whereas  the  apostle  speaks  of  our  being  buried, 
planted  and  crucified.  Now  why  do  they  not  insist 
upon  a  mode  of  baptism  that  will  symbolize  planting 
and  crucifying  as  well  as  burying  f  for  it  is  quite  evi- 
dent that  the  passage  countenances  all  three  as  much 
as  it  does  either  one.  The  fact  is,  it  is  impossible  to 
adopt  a  mode  of  baptism  that  will  symbolize  either ; 
nor  was  it  ever  designed  that  we  should.  This  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  the  outward  and  visible 
sign  in  a  sacrament  is  always  symbolical  of  something 
spiritual ;  but  if  you  make  water  baptism  the  sign  of 
the  crucifixion  and  burial  of  Christ,  you  make  the 
literal  to  represent  the  literal,  the  symbol  to  symbol- 
ize the  symbol,  which  is  absurd  !  Yet  this  is  the  very 
thing  that  immersionists  do  by  their  unnatural  and 
forced  interpretation  of  this  highly  figurative  passage. 
Christ's  dead  body  was  laid  in  the  cavity  of  a  rock, 
and  they  say  baptism  by  plunging  is  symbolical  of 
that! 


NOT     SYMBOLICAL     OF    CHRIST^    BURIAL.  35 

By  this  interpretation  of  the  passage  before  us  the 
design  of  the  apostle  is  wholly  lost  sight  of.  The 
manifest  design  of  the  apostle  is  to  show  that  justifi- 
cation by  faith  does  not  lead  to  licentiousness  in  the 
life  of  the  believer. 

Having  established  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  he  proceeds  to  meet  the  objection  of  its  opponents 
thus:  "Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may 
abound  ?  God  forbid:  how  shall  we  that  are  dead  to 
sin,  live  any  longer  therein."  So  far  from  continuing 
in  sin  the  believer  is  dead  to  sin.  This  is  the  apostle's 
answer  to  the  objection.  And  this  death  to  sin,  or 
crucifixion  of  the  old  man,  he  represents  as  brought 
about  by  the  death  of  Christ,  and  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  with  faith  on  our  part ;  of  which  faith, 
water  baptism  is  the  appropriate  outward  expression ; 
and,  at  the  same  time,  the  seal  of  the  righteousness 
thus  procured,  as  well  as  the  sign  of  the  baptism  by 
the  Spirit.  "  Then,"  says  Mr.  Watson,  (Institutes, 
vol.  ii.  p.  658),  "he  immediately  runs  into  a  favorite 
comparison,  which,  under  various  forms,  occurs  in  his 
writings,  sometimes  accompanied  with  the  same  allu- 
sions to  baptism,  and  sometimes  referring  only  to  faith 
as  the  instrument,  a  comparison  between  the  mystical 
death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  believers,  and  the 
literal  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  This 
is  the  comparison  of  the  text ;  not  a  comparison  be- 
tween our  mystical  death  and  baptism;  nor  between 
baptism  and  the  death  and  burial  of  Christ ;  either  of 
which  lay  wide  of  the  apostle's  intention,"  Any  one 
who  will  read  from  the  6th  to  the  11th  verse  of  this 
chapter  will  see  that  this  is  the  comparison  that  the 


36  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

apostle  employs  for  the  purpose  specified.  "  Knowing 
this,"-  says  the  apostle,  "that  our  old  man  is  crucified 
with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed, 
that  henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin.  For  he  that 
is  dead  is  freed  from  sin.  Now  if  we  be  dead  with 
Christ,  we  believe  we  shall  also  live  with  him :  Know- 
ing that  Christ,  being  raised  from  the  dead,  dieth  no 
more ;  death  hath  no  more  dominion  over  him.  For 
in  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once ;  but  in  that  he 
liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God.  Likewise  reckon  ye  also 
yourselves  to  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto 
God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

The  sublime  and  glorious  sentiments  of  the  apostle 
here  expressed  are  briefly  these  :  the  believer  is  "dead 
to  sin  "  and  is  thus  "freed  from  sin ;"  and  his  former 
unholy  connection  with  the  world  is  thus  as  effectually 
dissolved  as  is  our  literal  connection  with  the  world 
by  a  literal  death.  And  the  comparison  is  between 
this  mystical  death  and  separation,  and  Christ's  death; 
by  which  his  literal  connection  with  the  world  was 
dissolved,  and  our  death  to  sin  and  freedom  from  sin 
secured ;  and,  in  this  way,  our  unholy  connection  with 
the  world  is  as  effectually  dissolved,  as  was  Christ's 
literal  connection  with  the  world,  by  his  literal  death. 
Now  having  compared  our  mystical  death  and  sepa- 
ration from  the  world  to  Christ's  literal  death  and 
separation  from  the  world,  he  continues  the  train  of 
thought  and  proceeds  to  compare  our  mystical  resur- 
rection to  Christ's  literal  resurrection,  thus :  "  That 
like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
of  the  Father,  even  so  Ave  also  should  walk  in  newness 
of  life.     For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  tho 


NOT    SYMBOLICAL    OF    CHRIST'S    BURIAL.  37 

likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness 
of  his  resurrection.  Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man 
is  crucified  with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be 
destroyed,  that  henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin. 
For  he  that  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin.  Now  if  we  be 
dead  with  Christ  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  live 
with  him.  For  in  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once : 
but  in  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God.  Likewise 
reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin, 
but  alive  unto  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 
Now  to  represent  the  apostle  in  all  these  his  sublime 
and  inspired  conceptions,  illustrations  and  arguments, 
as  simply  attempting  a  comparison  between  plunging 
living  men  and  women  under  water,  and  laying 
Christ's  dead  body  in  a  tomb  hewn  out  of  a  rock,  is 
to  degrade  this  noble  and  inspired  production  into  driv- 
eling nonsense,  and  absolutely  ignore  the  noble  and 
glorious  end  or  ends  which  he  had  in  view,  namely,  to 
show  the  nature  and  extent  of  that  change  wrought 
in  the  sinner  upon  his  believing  in  Jesus  ;  together 
with  the  manner,  or  way,  in  which  it  is  wrought,  and 
thus  refute  the  slanderous  objection  raised  against  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  viz.,  that  it  leads  to 
a  licentious  life.  And  thus  it  is  that  error  always 
leads  from  the  truth  and  becomes  a  substitute  for  it ; 
and  in  this  case  a  very  pernicious, substitute! 


CHAPTER  IV. 

The  word  Sprinkle  is  now  taken  up — Its  use  and  design  shown 
from  Scripture — Plunging  for  the  purpose  of  sealing  is  an  out- 
rage upon  common  sense. 

Having  rescued  from  the  perversions  of  the  Ana- 
baptists the  much  abused  words  baptized,  buried,  we 
now  take  up  the  word  sprinkle. 

This  word  occurs  with  great  frequency,  and  in  the 
same  connection,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament. 
We  will  here  quote  a  few  of  the  passages  in  which  it 
occurs.  Levit.  xiv.  1,2:  "And  the  Lord  spake  unto 
Moses,  saying,  This  shall  be  the  law  of  the  leper  in 
the  day  of  his  cleansing." — "And  he  shall  sprinkle 
upon  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  from  the  leprosy  seven 
times,"  verse  4.  At  verses  15-18  we  read,  "And  the 
priest  shall  take  some  of  the  log  of  oil  and  pour  it 
into  the  palm  of  his  own  left  hand  ;  and  the  priest 
shall  dip  his  right  finger  into  the  oil  that  is  in  his  left 
hand,  and  shall  sprinkle  of  the  oil  with  his  finger 
seven  times  before  the  Lord." — "And  the  remnant  of 
the  oil  that  is  in  the  priest's  hand  he  shall  pour  upon 
the  head  of  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed."  Now  the  oil 
and  blood  here  spoken  of  were  used  for  the  same  pur- 
pose that  water  is  used  for  in  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism, viz.,  as  a  sign  ;    and  a  little  in  the  palm  of  the 


SCKIPTUKAL    VIEW    OF  SPKLNKLING.  39 

hand,  sprinkled  with  the  tip  of  one  finger,  God  con- 
sidered quite  sufficient:  but  Anabaptists  think  it  quite 
ridiculous  to  use  so  small  a  quantity ;  instead  of  sprink- 
ling the  individual  with  the  oil,  blood  or  water,  they 
would  have  him  plunged  in  it !  But  we  will  quote  a 
few  more  passages.  Levit.  xvi.  14,  "And  he  shall 
take  of  the  blood  of  the  bullock,  and  sprinkle  it  with 
his  finger  upon  the  mercy-seat."  Numbers  viii.  7, 
"And  thus  shalt  thou  do  unto  them  to  cleanse  them : 
sprinkle  water  of  purifying  upon  them  !"  Numbers 
xix.  18,  "And  a  clean  person  shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip 
it  in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent,  and  upon 
all  the  vessels,  and  upon  the  persons  that  were  there." 
Thus  were  they  to  do  for  an  "  unclean  person  ;"  and 
everybody  knows,  or  should  know,  that  baptism  with 
water  has  reference  to  moral  uncleanness,  and  to  the 
same  thing  circumcision  referred,  and  as  neither  blood 
nor  water  could  cleanse  the  soul,  but  was  applied  to 
the  body  merely  as  a  sign,  a  few  drops  sprinkled  with 
the  finger  answered  the  purpose.  The  fact  is,  the  idea 
of  virtue  is  attached  to  the  outward  application  by 
all  those  who  object  to  small,  and  contend  for  large, 
quantities  of  water ;  and  in  this  way  the  ordinance 
is  perverted  and  vitiated,  and  the  inward  application, 
which  is  the  thing  signified,  and  which  alone  pos- 
sesses the  cleansing  power,  is  wholly  lost  sight  of: 
and  this,  in  our  judgment,  is  a  serious  objection  to 
the  practice  of  plunging  instead  of  sprinkling  or 
pouring.  But  there  really  is  no  excuse  for  thus  losing 
the  spirit  in  the  letter,  for  God  has  made  the  design 
of  the  outward  application  sufficiently  plain,  as  the 
following  quotations  will    show :  Isaiah   lii.  15,  "So 


40  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

shall  he  (Jesus)  sprinkle  many  nations."  Ezekiel 
xxxvi.  25-27,  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean:  from  all  your  filthiness, 
and  from  all  your  idols,  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new 
heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  Avill  I  put 
within  you :  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out 
of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  an  heart  of 
flesh,  and  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you,  and 
cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  ye  shall 
keep  my  judgments  and  do  them."  Heb.  ix.  19, "For 
when  Moses  had  spoken  every  precept  to  all  the  peo- 
ple according  to  the  law,  he  took  the  blood  of  calves 
and  of  goats,  with  water,  and  scarlet  wool,  and  hys- 
sop, and  sprinkled  both  the  book  and  all  the  people." 
Heb.  x.  22,  "  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart,  in 
full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled 
from  an  evil  conscience."  Heb.  xii.  24,  "  We  are  come 
to  Jesus  the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  and  to  the 
blood  of  sprinkling  that  speaketh  better  things  than 
that  of  Abel.  ' 

Thus  all  these  sprinklings  end  in  that  which  they 
typify,  namely,  the  sprinkling,  the  cleansing  of  the 
soul  by  the  blood  of  Jesus :  and  a  few  drops  answer- 
ed this  purpose  as  well  as  a  river,  or  a  sea,  and  much 
better;  but  man,  poor,  ignorant,  carnal  man,  must 
improve  upon  God's  way  of  it ;  instead  of  having 
the  sign  or  seal  applied  to  the  person,  he,  forsooth, 
must  have  the  person  plunged  in  it :  the  idea  is  unnat- 
ural and  absurd  in  the  extreme  !  Baptism  is  a  sign 
and  seal,  as  circumcision  was  ;  and  of  course  the  seal 
should  be  applied  to  the  party  to  be  sealed,  not  the 
party  to  the  seal !     It  is  thus  that  God  uses  the  seal, 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEW     OF     SPRINKLING.  41 

as  the  foregoing  Scriptures  do  most  incontestably 
show.  And  the  following  text  affords  still  more 
striking  evidence,  if  that  be  possible.  "After  that 
ye  believed  ye  were  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of 
promise." — Ep.  i.  13.  It  is  obvious  that  the  apostle 
here  speaks  of  the  same  baptism,  the  same  sealing, 
which  was  the  subject  of  promise  in  the  texts  quoted 
above.  "  I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  upon  you."  "  Ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  is  to  this 
promise  that  the  apostle  refers  when  he  says :  "After 
that  ye  believed  ye  were  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  promise."  The  symbol  fell  upon  the  body,  the 
Spirit  upon  the  soul. 

So  it  is  in  the  administration  of  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism ;  the  symbol,  the  seal,which  is  water,  falls  upon  and 
seals  the  body,  the  Spirit  falls  upon  and  seals  the  soul. 
This,  then,  is  another  ground  of  objection  to  plung- 
ing. God's  method,  or  mode,  of  baptizing,  includes, 
and  very  strikingly  expresses,  the  idea  of  sealing, while 
plunging  utterly  excludes  that  idea;  the  idea  of  plung- 
ing for  the  purpose  of  sealing  is  an  outrage  on  common 
sense. 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  assumption  that  en,  els,  and  elc,  always  mean  in,  into,  and  out 
of,  is  refuted,  and  the  argument  built  thereon,  shown  to  be 
worthless,  a  mere  begging  of  the  question. 

We  now  take  up  the  argument  which  immersionists 
ground  upon  the  assumption  that  the  Greek  preposi- 
tions en,  els,  and  eh,  always  mean  in,  into,  and  out  of. 
On  this  assumption  it  is  confidently  asserted  that  John 
baptized  in  Jordan,  that  Jesus  came  up  out  of  the 
water,  and  that  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  went  down 
into  the  water,  and  came  up  out  of  the  water,  and 
finally,  that  they  must  all  have  been  plunged  under 
the  water !  Hence  this  famous  argument  is  made  up 
of  three  assumptions;  viz.,  that  these  words  mean 
what  immersionists  say  they  mean,  neither  more  nor 
less  ;  second,  that  all  the  parties  mentioned  went  into 
the  water  and  were  baptized  in  it ;  third,  that,  there- 
fore, they  must  all  have  been  plunged  under  the 
water.  Now  in  all  this  there  is  absolutely  nothing 
but  assumption,  which  assumption  we  now  proceed 
to  disprove. 

We  Avill  first  take  up  the  preposition  en.  Now, 
observe,  we  do  not  deny  that  the  Greek  word  en 
sometimes  means  in;  but  we  do  deny  that  it  always 
has  this  meaning.     Mr.  Thome   says  "from  an  accu- 


GREEK    PREPOSITIONS.  4:6 

rate  investigation  of  the  subject,1'  he  finds  that,  "in 
our  version  of  the  New  Testament,  the  translators 
have  rendered  en,  at,  on,  or  with,  three  hundred  and 
thirteen  times.  But  lest  the  immersionist  should  say 
that  our  translators  should  have  rendered  en,  in,  in 
all  these  places,  we  will  quote  a  few  passages,  which 
will,  we  think,  demonstrate  that  it  would  be  highly 
improper,  in  many  instances,  to  render  en,  in.  And 
here  I  beg  to  state  that  I  have  examined  the  original 
for  myself,  and  am  prepared  to  say  that  it  reads  as  I 
here  state.  Matt.  iii.  11.  "I  indeed  baptize  you  en 
water  eis  repentance :  but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is 
mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear : 
he  shall  baptize  you  en  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire." 
Now  let  en,  and  eis.,  in  this  passage  be  rendered  in, 
and  into,  and  then  the  passage  will  read  thus,  "  I  in- 
deed baptize  you  in  water  into  repentance:"—"  but 
he  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire." 
And  if  we  render  baptize,  pl»,nge,  in  this  text,  as 
immersionists  say  we  should,  the  case  will  be  still 
worse  :  then  the  text  will  read,  "  I  indeed  plunge  you 
in  water  into  repentance :" — "  but  he  shall  plunge  you 
in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire."  Now  in  addition  to  the 
absurdity,  not  to  say  blasphemy,  of  this  rendering,  it 
leaves  us  without  any  baptism  at  all,  either  literal  or 
spiritual ;  nothing  bv,t  plunging  in  water  into  repen- 
tance and  ix  the  Holy  Ghost !  By  this  exhibit  any 
one  can  see  the  absurdity  and  the  untruthfulness  of 
the  assumption  here  opposed.  Take  another  instance. 
In  Romans  viii.  34,  we  read,  "  Who  is  he  that  con- 
demneth?  It  is  Christ  that  died,  yea,  rather,  that  is 
risen  again,  who  is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God." 


44  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

The  word  here  rendered  at  is,  in  the  original,  in  one 
of  my  Greek  Testaments  en,  in  the  other  eis.  Now, 
according  to  the  assumption  here  opposed,  this  text 
would  read,  in  the  one,  "  who  is  even  in  the  right 
hand  of  God,"  and  in  the  other,  "  who  is  even  into 
the  right  hand  of  God  !  "  This  presents  the  absurdity 
and  untruthfulness  of  the  assumption  with  similar 
clearness.  We  have  examined  many  other  texts 
where  this  preposition  means  at,  by,  near  to.  See, 
for  instance,  Luke  xiii.  4,  where  our  Lord  speaks  of 
"the  Tower  en  Siloam."  Certainly  the  tower  was 
not  in  the  pool,  or  well,  but  at  or  near  it.  In  one  of 
my  Greek  Testaments  the  words  are,  "  Ho  purgos  eis 
to  Siloam;"  "the  tower  into  Siloam,"  according  to 
the  assumption  here  opposed !  In  Matt.  ix.  35,  we 
are  told  Christ  "healed  every  sickness,  and  every 
disease  among  the  people."  The  word  here  rendered 
among,  is  in  the  original  en,  and  in  one  of  my  Greek 
Testaments  eis,  hence  according  to  the  claims  of 
immersionists  this  text  should  read,  "  every  sickness 
and  every  disease  in,  or  into,  the  people !  "  Let 
these  few  out  of  many  texts  suffice  to  show  the 
untruthfulness  and  the  absurdity  of  the  assumption 
here  objected  to,  and  we  think,  now  fully  refuted. 

The  preposition  eis  may  now  come  under  notice. 
The  arguments  in  favor  of  immersion  are  based  on 
the  assumption  that  this  word  always  means  into. 
In  Matt.  xxi.  1,  we  read,  "And  when  they  drew  nigh 
unto  Jerusalem,  and  were  come  to  Bethpage,  unto  the 
Mount  of  Olives."  Here  eis  is  rendered  nigh,  with 
regard  to  the  one  place,  and  to  with  regard  to  the 
other,  for  it  is  evident  Jesus  and  his  companions 


GREEK    PREPOSITIONS.  45 

could  not  enter  both  places  at  the  same  time,  they 
being  distant  from  each  other.  In  Matt.  xvii.  27, 
Peter  is  commanded  to  go  eis  the  sea,  and  cast  an 
hook."  It  is  evident  that  Peter  is  not  here  com- 
manded to  go  into  the  sea  to  cast  in  thither  his  hook ; 
to  cast  a  hook  into  the  sea  at  Capernaum  it  was  not 
necessary  that  he  should  go  into  the  sea,  probably  not 
practicable ;  hence  our  translators  have  rendered  eis, 
to,  not  into,  and  they  had  as  much  authority  so  to 
translate  in  the  narrative  of  John's  baptism,  and  that 
of  Philip  :  and  immersionists  have  no  more  right  to 
place  John  in  Jordan,  and  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  in 
the  water,  than  they  have  to  place  Peter  in  the  sea  at 
Capernaum. 

Acts  xxiv.  15.  "And  have  hope  toward  God," 
Tioti?ito  God,  Matt,  xviii.  15.  "  If  thy  brother  shall 
trespass  against  thee,"  here  eis  is  rendered  against, 
for  it  would  not  be  proper  to  say  trespassed  into  thee 
any  more  than  it  would  have  been  proper  to  say  in 
the  former  text,  hope  into  God.  Mark  iii.  29.  "  But 
he  that  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Here  again  eis  is  rendered  against,  for  it  certainly 
would  not  be  proper  to  say  "  blaspheme  into  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Acts  xxii.  30.  "  Brought  Paul  and  set  him 
before  them."  Here  eis  is  rendered  before,  for  it 
would  not  be  proper  to  say,  set  him  into  them.  In 
Isaiah  xxxvi.  2,  we  read,  "And  the  King  of  Assyria 
sent  Rabshakeh  from  Lacbish  to  Jerusalem."  In  the 
Septuagint  the  reading  is  ek  Lachish  eis  Jerusalem. 
Here  it  is  evident  that  eh  and  eis  mean  from  and  to, 
not  out  of,  and  into,  for  Rabshakeh  was  not  sent  into 
Jerusalem.      And   we  have  the   same   authority  to 


46  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

translate  to  the  water,  and  from  the  water,  in  the 
narrative  of  the  Eunuch's  baptism  by  Philip.  In 
short,  every  scholar  knows  that  both  sacred  and  clas- 
sic writers  use  eh,  and  eis,  to  express  the  ideas  from, 
and  to.  Apo  and  eis  are  also  used  in  the  same  con- 
nection :  hence  we  read,  apo  city  eis  city.  That  is, 
from  city  to  city.  Apo  Jerusalem,  eis  Jericho.  Also, 
the  way  that  goeth  down,  apo  Jerusalem,  eis  Gaza. 
That  is,  "the  way  that  goeth  down  from  Jerusalem 
to  Gaza." 

With  regard  to  els,  or  ex,  we  will  simply  quote  a 
few  texts  to  show  the  various  meanings  of  that  prepo- 
sition. Matt.  xii.  33.  "  The  tree  is  known  by  its 
fruit."  Here  eh  is  rendered  by.  Matt.  xx.  2.  "Agreed 
with  the  laborers  eh  denariou  /"  that  is,  for  a  penny. 
In  Matt.  xxi.  19,  it  is  rendered  on  y  in  Rom  ix.  21, 
ic  is  rendered  of.  In  short,  Mr.  Thorne,  who  has 
been  at  the  trouble  of  counting,  tells  us  that  in  the 
New  Testament  eh  is  rendered  from  186  times,  and 
eis  to,  or  unto,  538  times.  And  in  Schleusner's  Lex- 
icon of  the  New  Testament,  we  are  told  that  eh  has 
24  distinct  meanings,  or  senses,  en  36,  and  els  26. 
And  yet  the  advocates  of  plunging,  as  the  only  mode 
of  baptism,  build  their  arguments  upon  the  asszanp- 
tion  that  en,  eis,  and  eh,  always  mean  in,  into  and 
out  of.  It  is  true,  they  admit,  at  least  those  of  them 
who  are  scholars,  that  these  words  have  a  great 
variety  of  meanings  ;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  the 
arguments  which  they  deduce  from  the  narratives  of 
John's  and  Philip's  baptism  are  all  based  upon  this 
assumption.  Indeed  they  admit  that  the  word  bap- 
tizo  has  a  great  variety  of  nv  anings,  yet,  strange  a^ 


GREEK    PREPOSITIONS. 


it  may  appear,  their  arguments  in  favor  of  plunging 
are,  for  the  most  part,  built  upon  the  assumption  that 
it  always  means  "  to  immerse,  to  dip,  to  plunge, 
neither  more  nor  less."  But  that  this  assumption  is 
without  warrant  or  plausibility  we  believe  we  have 
clearly  shown.  Nor  will  the  connection  in  which  the 
word  baptize  is  found  in  the  Scriptures  give  any 
countenance  to  this  assumption;  for  it  is  found  con- 
nected with  the  words  fall,  pour,  shed,  sprinkle,  and 
other  words  of  similar  import.  And  with  regard  to 
the  prepositions  with  which  it  sometimes  stands  con- 
nected, we  trust  we  have  shown  that  they  give  no 
warrant  for  the  assumption :  therefore  the  assumption 
is  utterly  without  foundation !  And,  let  it  be  dis- 
tinctly observed,  that,  at  the  very  most,  there  can  be 
no  more  than  assumption ;  for  no  man  in  his  senses 
can  claim  that  we  are  any  where  in  the  Scriptures 
commanded  to  plunge  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost!  The  utmost  that 
can  be  claimed  even  with  the  slightest  plausibility, 
by  the  advocates  of  plunging,  is  that  the  verb  baptizo 
sometimes  means  to  plunge ;  but  even  if  we  admit 
this  claim,  our  admission  will  not  affect  our  position, 
for  still  it  will  remain  a  fact  that  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing is  baptism,  for  God  says  it  is,  and  in  that  way  he 
always  administers  baptism:  nor  would  our  admis- 
sion afford  the  advocates  of  plunging  any  help  till 
they  first  prove  that  the  word  has  that  meaning  in 
Scripture  where  Christian  baptism  is  recorded  and 
enjoined ;  and  this  we  know  they  cannot  do,  while  we 
can  prove,  and  have  proved,  tha1",  it  means  to  sprinkle, 
to  pour,  and  that  this  is  God's  mode,  invariably  so. 


4:8  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

Once  again  I  say,  and  I  say  it  with  all  confidence, 
that  no  man  living  can  prove  that  God  ever  taught 
plunging  for  baptism ;  hence  those  who  undertake  to 
administer  baptism  in  that  way  do  it  upon  their  own 
authority.  And  everybody  knows,  or  may  know, 
that  God  never  baptized  by  plunging !  Here  are  the 
facts :  God's  precept  is  pouring  ;  His  practice  is  pour- 
ing ;  while  in  favor  of  plunging  there  is  absolutely 
not  one  jot  or  tittle !  Let  them  disprove  this  conclu- 
sion who  can. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

A  fallacy  and  its  terrible  consequences  exposed — If  Philip  and 
the  Eunuch  did  go  down  into  the  water  it  would  not  follow  that 
either  was  plunged — The  question,  "why  did  John  baptize 
where  there  was  much  water  ?  "  answered. 

Just  here  it  may  be  well  to  expose  the  fallacy,  and 
show  the  terrible  consequences,  of  taking  that  which 
is  occasionally  the  meaning  of  a  given  word,  and 
assuming  that  such  is  its  primary,  its  only  meaning. 

The  primary  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  doulos,  is 
poor,  exhausted,  reduced  to  poverty.  Hence  this 
word  was  used  to  designate  a  servant,  and  finally  a 
slave.  "Now  take  the  latter  as  the  primary,  the  only 
meaning  of  the  word  doulos,  and  you  may  prove  that 
all  who  are  employed  by  their  fellow -men  are  slaves, 
yea,  and  that  all  the  people  of  God  are  slaves  !  It  is 
in  this  way  that  slaveholders,  and  the  advocates  of 
slavery,  have  attempted  to  prove  that  slavery  is  of 
divine  appointment,  is  scriptural,  because  in  the 
Scriptures  certain  directions  are  given  to  regulate  the 
mutual  relations  and  obligations  of  hurioi  and  douloi ; 
that  is,  masters  and  servants.  Again  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  vrord  pistis,  is  faith,  but  it  sometimes 
means  fidelity.  Now  assume  that  the  latter  is  its  only 
meaning  and  you  may  prove  that  salvation  is  not  by 
believing,  but  by  fidelity,  and  in  this  way  you  would 


50  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

overturn  the  whole  Christian  system !  Again  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  pneuma,  like 
the  Hebrew  word  ruach,  is  spirit,  but  it  sometimes 
means  wind,  air.  Now  only  assume  that  the  latter 
is  its  only  meaning  and  you  may  prove  from  the  Bible 
that  God  is  the  wind,  for  our  blessed  Lord  says 
Pneuma  ho  Theos,  that  is,  according  to  this  assump- 
tion, God  is  the  wind  !  In  the  same  way  you  may 
prove  that  man's  higher  nature  is  mere  wind  or  air ! 
Again  psuche  means  the  immortal  part  of  man  as 
distinguished  from  the  body  ;  but  it  sometimes  means 
the  breath,  and  even  the  blood,  because  these  are  the 
essentials  of  animal  life,  and  the  primary  meaning  of 
psuche  being  life,  it  is  applied  thereto  in  a  secondary 
sense ;  but  its  primary  application  is  to  the  immortal 
part,  that  being  life  in  the  highest  sense.  Now  if  you 
take  the  accommodated  meaning  of  this  word  and 
assume  that  to  be  its  only  meaning,  you  will  reach  the 
conclusion  of  the  Adventists,  or  Nasoulites,  viz.,  that 
man  has  no  soul,  no  spirit,  that  there  is  nothing  of 
him  but  mere  matter.  Again  deipnon  means  a  sup- 
per, a  common  meal,  a  feast ;  assume  this  to  be  the 
only  meaning  of  the  word  and  like  the  Corinthians 
you  will  reduce  "the  Lord's  Supper"  to  a  common 
meal,  a  feast.  Once  more.  The  Hebrew  word  Sheol 
and  the  Greek  word  Hades  mean  the  hidden,  the  con- 
cealed, the  lowest  place,  or  condition  ;  hence  it  is 
applied  to  the  grave.  Now  let  it  be  assumed  that  the 
latter  is  the  only  meaning  of  the  word,  and  you  will 
reach  the  conclusion,  with  the  Universalist,  that  there 
is  no  hell,  no  punishment  or  place  of  punishment,  in 
the  other  world. 


A   FALLACY   EXPOSED.  51 

Now,  this  is  precisely  the  fallacy  which,  to  the  igno- 
rant, gives  plausibility  to  what  immersionists  say  in 
favor  of  their  mode  of  baptizing.  They  say  en  means 
in,  eis  means  into,  and  ek  means  ont  of,  and  so  they 
do ;  but,  assuming  that  these  are  the  only  meanings 
of  these  words,  and  finding  them  used  sometimes, 
though  not  always,  in  the  narrative  of  John's  bap- 
tism, and  that  by  Philip,  they  say  they  went  down 
into  the  water  and  came  up  out  of  it,  ergo,  they  bap- 
tized by  plunging !  Now,  in  precisely  the  same  way 
others  conclude  that  man  is  a  mere  animal,  and  that 
there  is  no  future  punishment.  Such  is  the  nature  of 
this  fallacy,  and  such  are  the  terrible  consequences  to 
which  it  leads,  or  may  lead,  the  ignorant  and  unsus- 
pecting. 

Having  shown  that  the  Greek  prepositions  en,  eis, 
and  ek,  are  employed  both  by  the  sacred  and  classic 
writers  to  express  the  ideas  near,  to,  and  from,  and 
many  others,  as  well  as  in,  into,  and  out  of,  we  have 
disproved  the  assumption  of  the  immersionists,  viz., 
that  they  always  mean  in,  into,  and  out  of;  and  as 
many  of  their  arguments  in  favor  of  plunging  rest 
upon  this  assumption,  it  follows  that  such  arguments 
are  worthless  :  hence  all  their  conclusions  in  favor  of 
immersion,  so  far  as  they  depend  upon  the  statements 
that  John  baptized  in  Jordan,  and  that  Philip  and  the 
Eunuch  went  down  into  the  water  and  came  up  out  of 
it,  are  illegitimate  and  worthless  ;  therefore,  if  they 
would  prove  plunging  to  be  the  right  mode,  they  must 
derive  their  proof  from  a  very  different  source,  for 
every  scholar  knows  that  the  Greek  prepositions 
afford  no  such  proop. 


52  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

But  even  though  they  could  prove  that  Philip  and 
the  Eunuch  went  down  into  the  water,  that  would 
not  prove  that  the  latter  was  plunged  under  the 
water,  for  if  Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch  by  sprink- 
ling, they  would  both  have  to  go  to  or  into  the  water 
to  this  end,  for  it  is  not  likely  that  they  had  a  vessel 
with  them  to  carry  water  to  a  distance,  and  it  is  still 
less  likely  that  the  water  would  come  up  to  them  in 
the  chariot.  Moreover,  if  the  text  proves  that  the 
Eunuch  was  immersed,  it  also  proves  that  Philip  was 
immersed;  for  there  is  nothing  said  of  the  one,  with 
regard  to  going  down  and  coming  up,  that  is  not  said 
of  the  other.  In  short,  the  language  employed  to 
record  this  event,  is  just  such  as  any  one  would  era- 
ploy  where  immersion  was  not  so  much  as  thought  of. 
It  should  be  observed,  too,  that  if  the  Eunuch  was 
immersed,  he  must  have  been  immersed  naked,  or 
with  his  clothes  on,  for  it  is  not  likely  that  he  had  a 
change  of  garments  with  him,  nor  is  it  at  all  likely 
that  he  would  pursue  his  long  journey  in  the  garments 
in  which  he  was  plunged  in  the  water,  and  he  did 
pursue  his  journey  immediately  after  being  baptized, 
for  we  are  told,  "  when  they  were  come  up  out  of," 
or  from  "  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught 
away  Philip,  that  the  Eunuch  saw  him  no  more,  and 
he  went  on  his  way  rejoicing."  I  should  think  he 
would  feel  more  like  trembling  than  rejoicing,  if  he 
was  sitting  in  the  chariot  in  the  same  clothes  in  which 
he  had  just  before  been  plunged  under  water ;  and  there 
certainly  is  no  intimation  of  his  having  undressed  and 
dressed  again.  In  short,  there  is  noting  in  this  nar- 
rative that  would    lead  any  ono  to  the  belief   that 


A   FALLACY    EXPOSED.  53 

Philip  plunged  the  Eunuch  under  water,  especially 
when  it  is  remembered  that  the  Divinely  instituted 
method  of  pouring  and  sprinkling  had  existed  among 
Philip's  ancestors  for  nearly  two  thousand  years  ! 
Indeed,  the  prophecy  which  Philip  was  explaining  to 
the  Eunuch,  and  which  led  to  the  conversion  and 
baptism  of  the  latter,  contains  these  remarkable  words : 
"  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations."  See  last  verse 
of  chapter  lii.  of  Isaiah.  Being  now  a  believer  in 
Him  who  should  "  sprinkle  many  nations,"  the  Eunuch 
at  once  desired  to  be  baptized,  agreeably  to  the  pro- 
phetic promise  now  before  him,  and  which  Philip 
was  explaining  to  him.  Now,  as  sprinkling,  not 
plunging,  was  sj>ecified  in  the  passage  before  them, 
and  as  that  mode  had  been  practiced  by  the  Jews 
from  the  first  until  now,  and  that  by  divine  appoint- 
ment, it  is  not  likely  that  either  Philip  or  the  Eunuch 
would  think  of  plunging  on  this  occasion.  The 
Eunuch  said  :  "  I  pray  thee,  of  whom  speaketh  the 
prophet  this  ?"  Philip  told  him  that  it  was  Jesus  of 
whom  the  prophet  spake,  and  the  Eunuch  believed. 
The  prophet  said  that  this  Jesus  would  "  sprinkle 
many  nations ;"  and  the  Eunuch  said  :  "  See,  here  is 
water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?"  There 
was  nothing  to  hinder  him — he  was  baptized  by 
sprinkling,  doubtless,  agreeably  to  the  Scripture  upon 
which  they  had  just  now  been  meditating. 

It  is  only  necessary  to  add,  that  all  we  have  said 
with  regard  to  the  baptism  by  Philip,  will  apply  to 
John's  baptism,  and  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  argu- 
ments which  the  advocates  of  immersion  employ  to 
prove  that  John  plunged  the  people  under  water ;  for 


54  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

their  arguments  in  each  case  are  derived  from  the 
same  assumption,  viz. :  that  eis,  en  and  ek  mean  into, 
in,  and  out  of.  Indeed  it  is  not  said  in  the  original 
that  Jesus  came  up  out  of  the  water.  In  Matt.  iii. 
16,  the  original  reads:  anebe  euthus  apo  ton 
hudatos,  up  straight  from  the  water.  Therefore, 
with  regard  to  John's  baptism  it  only  remains  for  us 
to  answer  the  question,  "  If  John  did  not  immerse 
why  did  he  baptize  where  there  was  much  water  ?" 
We  reply,  if  your  mind  were  not  unduly  occupied 
with  the  dogma  of  immersion  you  would  find  a  satis- 
factory answer  to  your  question  in  the  sacred  narra- 
tive. Just  read  the  following:  "And  he  came  into 
all  the  country  about  Jordan  preaching  the  baptism 
of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Here  fol- 
low specimens  of  his  preaching  and  of  his  exhorta- 
tions. Luke  iii.  3.  "  Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusa- 
lem, and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about 
Jordan."  Matt.  iii.  5.  "John  did  baptize  in  the 
wilderness,  and  preach  the  baptism  of  repentance  for 
the  remission  of  sins."  Observe,  it  is  not  only  said 
that  he  "  baptized  in  Jordan,"  but  also  that  he  "  bap- 
tized in  the  wilderness."  Hence,  I  have  as  good  a 
right  to  infer  from  these  texts  that  John  plunged  in 
the  wilderness  as  others  have  to  infer  that  he  plunged 
in  Jordan,  the  same  preposition  being  used  in  each 
case.  In  one  of  my  Greek  Testaments  the  words  are 
eis  ten  eremon,  in  the  other  en  te  eremo. 

But  my  special  object  in  quoting  these  texts  is  fo 
call  attention  to  the  vast  multitudes  which  came  to 
John  from  Jerusalem  and  the  different  regions  here 
specified,  certainly  not  less  than  several  millions,  with 


A   FALLACY   EXPOSED.  55 

their  camels,  &c,  to  abide  there  for  a  length  of  time 
to  be  instructed  by  the  great  preacher  who  was  the 
forerunner  of  their  long  expected  Messiah,  and  who 
was  now  preparing  them  for  his  immediate  appear- 
ing. It  is  quite  evident  that  such  vast  multitudes 
under  such  circumstances,  required  much  water  for 
domestic  and  olher  purposes.  In  short,  no  man  in 
his  senses  would  bring  such  multitudes  of  human 
beings  and  beasts  of  burden  from  a  distance  to  abide 
for  a  time  where  there  was  not  much  water;  espec- 
ially in  a  hot  season,  and  in  a  country  where  water 
generally  was  scarce.  Moreover,  if  he  was  to  preach 
to  and  baptize  the  people  dwelling  in  "  all  the  region 
round  about  Jordan,'"  it  was  obviously  proper  that  he 
should  have  his  station  at  Jordan,  that  being  a  cen- 
tral position.  For  similar  reasons  he  had  his  station 
at  another  time  at  Enon,  where  there  was  a  suitable 
supply  of  water ;  though  there  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  the  vast  quantities  that  immersionists 
would  have  us  believe  there  was  ;  for  travelers  find 
no  evidence  of  there  being  in  Enon  any  more  than 
certain  fountains  or  springs.  It  is  well  known  that 
camp-meetings  in  this  country  are  always  held  where 
there  is  plenty  of  water,  though  I  suppose  a  thousand 
such  congregations  would  not  be  equal  to  the  vast 
multitudes  who  came  to  hear  this  great  preacher  in 
the  wilderness,  and  to  be  baptized  of  him.  From 
these  considerations  it  is  evident  that  John  needed 
much  water  for  the  millions  to  whom  he  preached 
in  the  wilderness,  without  supposing  that  he  plunged 
them  all  into  it !  The  idea  is  as  gratuitous  as  it  is 
extravagant.     How  is  it  that    we  never  hear  of  the 


56  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

apostles  baptizing  where  much  water  was  ?  Evident!  y 
because  they  labored  where  the  people  were,  at  or 
near  their  homes,  and,  therefore,  had  all  the  neces- 
saries of  domestic  life ;  and,  there  being  no  plunging, 
that  was  sufficient. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  dogma  that  nothing  but   Plunging  is  Baptism  is  shown  to 
involve  what  is  Unreasonable,  Inhuman  and  even  Impossible. 

We  must  not  pass  unnoticed  the  unreasonableness 
of  the  assumptions  here  objected  to.  For  instance,  is 
it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  one  man  plunged  mil- 
lions of  people  in  a  river,  "in  the  wilderness,''' where 
neither  himself  nor  the  millions  thus  plunged  had  any- 
home  or  any  of  the  conveniences  of  domestic  life  ? 
Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  all  these  vast  multi- 
tudes had  changes  of  raiment  or  gowns  for  the  pur- 
pose ?  or  that  they  were  plunged  into  the  river  having 
on  them  the  only  suit  of  clothes  they  had  ?  or  that 
the  countless  multitudes  should  live  in  the  wilderness 
with  their  wet  garments  on  till  they  dried  upon  their 
persons  ?  or  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  these  vast 
multitudes  were  exposed  and  plunged  into  the  river 
naked?  Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  John  himself 
was  naked,  or  that  he  lived  and  labored  in  his  wet 
clothes,  or  had  a  sufficient  number  of  changes  of  rai- 
ment of  "  camel's  hair  ?"  Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  any  man  could  live  in  the  wilderness,  or  rather 
in  the  river,  and  plunge  under  water  such  vast  multi- 
tudes of  people  from  Jerusalem,  from  Judea,  and  from 
"  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan  ?"     When  a  man 


5S  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

baptizes  a  few  in  a  river  in  these  days  he  is  glad  to 
hasten  to  his  comfortable  home  and  change  as  quickly 
as  possible ;  and  the  poor  trembling  female  must  be 
carried  home  in  a  carriage,  or  to  the  nearest  house, 
and  stripped  as  quickly  as  possible  ;  or  if  there  are  a 
dozen  or  twenty  to  be  baptized,  it  will  require  several 
Sabbaths  to  do  this  little  work,  because  a  sufficient 
number  of  gowns  cannot  be  procured  !  I  wonder  how 
long  it  would  have  taken  John  to  baptize  several  mil- 
lions in  this  way !  Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  a 
few  apostles  plunged  three  thousand  men  and  women 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  not  in  Jordan  nor  in  Enon, 
where  much  water  was,  but  in  Jerusalem,  where  lit- 
tle water  was,  and  all  this  in  a  few  hours  at  most ;  for 
most  of  the  day  was  evidently  occupied  by  preaching 
and  other  religious  exercises  ?  Is  it  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  God  has  made  plunging  so  essential  that 
there  can  be  no  baptism,  no  admission  to  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Supper,  no  admission  into  the  Christian 
Church,  yea,  no  Church  at  all,  without  it;  although 
there  are  countries  where  water  cannot  be  had  unless 
in  very  small  quantities,  by  melting  the  snow,  for 
large  bodies  of  water  are  covered  over  with  ice  fifteen 
or  twenty  feet  thick,  while  multitudes  of  others  live 
in  dry  and  parched  deserts  "  where  no  water  is  ?"  Is 
it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  an  infinitely  wise,  kind 
and  merciful  God  would  exclude  from  the  sacrament 
of  baptism,  from  the  sacrament  of  the  supper,  and 
from  the  Church  itself,  millions  of  the  feeble,  the  sick 
and  the  wounded,  simply  because  they  are  in  a  state 
that  renders  it  imprudent,  yea,  wicked  and  even 
impossible,  to  plunge  them  under  water,  when  his 


BAPTISM  BY  PLUNGING  UNREASONABLE.     59 

own  instituted  method  may  be  adopted  without  risk 
to  the  feeblest  of  them?  For  instance,  thousands  of 
our  wounded,  sick  and  mangled  soldiers,  are  obtaining 
salvation  by  faith  in  our  adorable  Jesus.  Must  they  be 
deprived  of  the  sacraments,  of  the  seal  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  and  shut  out  from  the  Church  of  God, 
simply  because  their  poor,  mangled  and  sick  bodies 
cannot  be  plunged  under  water  ?  I  ask,  is  all  this 
scriptural?  Is  it  reasonable ?  Is  it  humane?  Is  it 
not  rather  cruel  and  absurd?  Yet  all  this  is  implied, 
is  included,  in  the  claims  of  the  immersionists  ! 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  appeal  to  antiquity  is  simply  superstition,  cruelty  and  absurd- 
ity, appealing  to  superstition,  cruelty  and  absurdity — Many 
superstitions  and  absurd  opinions  and  practices  specified  as 
having  obtained  in  the  nominally  Christian  Church  at  a  very 
early  period — It  is  difficult  to  mention  any  one  religious  dogma 
that  is  more  clogged  with  difficulties  than  is  the  dogma  of 
plunging. 

But,  to  support  these  unscriptural,  unreasonable, 
inhuman  and  cruel  claims,  immersionists  appeal  to 
antiquity.  This  is  none  other  than  superstition,  cru- 
elty and  absurdity,  appealing  to  superstition,  cruelty 
and  absurdity  for  help  !  What  absurdity  is  there  that 
may  not  claim  kindred  with  antiquity  ?  Not  being 
satisfied  with  the  simplicity  of  the  divine  institutions, 
men  soon  began  to  add  to  them  to  make  them  more 
impressive.  And  this  work  commenced  even  before 
the  apostles  were  called  away.  But  as  early  as  the 
latter  end  of  the  second,  or  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  the  practice  of  washing  before  pouring  was 
adopted ;  then  partially  immersing,  followed  by  pour- 
ing ;  then  immersing  three  times,  anointing  with  oil, 
signing  with  the  sign  of  the  cross ;  imposition  of 
hands,  exorcism,  eating  milk  and  honey,  putting  on 
white  robes,  and  other  superstitious  observances 
worthy  of  the  dark  ages.     As  early  as  the  third  cen- 


PLUNGING    BESET    WITH     DIFFICULTIES.  61 

tiny,  some,  in  receiving  the  sacrament  of  the  sup- 
per, mixed  water  with  the  wine ;  others  used  water 
only,  while  others  used  bread  and  cheese.  The  Ophites 
had  a  tamed  serpent  which  they  caused  to  twine 
round  the  bread — then  they  kissed  the  serpent,  and 
afterwards  partook  of  the  bread.  The  Zanzalians 
contended  that  the  Scriptural  baptism  was  a  baptism 
with  fire ;  and  their  mode  was  to  brand  three  times 
with  a  red-hot  iron.  The  Jovinians  taught  that  grace 
received  in  baptism  could  never  be  lost.  The  Hie- 
raxites  taught  that  all  infants  would  be  damned,  for 
they  held  that  the  procuring  cause  of  salvation  was 
knowledge,  and  this  of  course  left  no  chance  for  the 
poor  infant.  The  Novations  taught  many  absurdities, 
and  being  confident  that  they  only  were  right,  they 
of  course  re-baptized  all  who  joined  them  and  who 
had  been  baptized  before.  The  Valentinians  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  his  Son,  and  the  mother  of 
the  world  !  And  as  to  the  Donatists,  they  taught  that 
baptism  administered  by  any  but  their  own  party  was 
invalid,  and  that  they  had  authority  to  remove  all 
errors  and  corruptions  from  the  Church !  Now  all 
these  and  numerous  other  errors  and  absurdities,  and 
even  blasphemies,  were  taught  in  the  second,  third 
and  fourth  centuries.  ISTor  were  these  errors  confined 
to  the  vile  sects  such  as  those  noticed  above,  but  what 
was  called  the  orthodox  Church  soon  became  deluged 
with  pernicious  errors  and  superstitious  rights  and 
ceremonies ;  and  many  of  the  leading  ministers,  such 
as  Tertullian,  Origen  and  Augustine,  largely  contribu- 
ted thereto  !  Such  men  were  zealous  and  swayed  the 
masses  with  their  eloquence,  but  they  were  miserable 


62  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

theologians.  And  why?  I  answer,  because  they 
relied  upon  their  own  ability  and  upon  human  philos- 
ophy to  learn  and  teach  what  only  can  be  learned 
and  taught  from  the  word  of  God.  Moreover,  many 
of  them  still  clung  to  errors  which  they  had  con- 
tracted before  they  embraced  Christianity.  Such  was 
the  case,  for  instance,  with  Augustine,  who  had  been 
a  Manichean  before  he  embraced  Christianity.  And 
such  was  the  case  with  many  others  who  still  retained 
some  of  their  former  errors,  and  embraced  others ;  all 
of  which  they  attempted  to  incorporate  w7ith  the 
Christian  system.  But  it  is  useless  to  dwell  upon 
this  feature  of  antiquity.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
nominally  Christian  Church  became  corrupt  at  a  very 
early  period.  "  The  ancient  Christians,"  says  Wall, 
"  wdien  they  were  baptized  by  immersion,  were  all 
baptized  naked,  whether  they  wrere  men,  women  or 
children.  They  thought  it  better  represented  the  put- 
ting oif  of  the  old  man,  and  also  the  nakedness  of  Christ 
on  the  cross  :  moreover,  as  baptism  is  a  washing,  they 
judged  it  should  be  the  washing  of  the  body,  not  of 
the  clothes."  "There  is  no  ancient  historical  fact," 
says  Robinson,  "  better  authenticated  than  this."  Now 
when  immersionists  appeal  to  antiquity  in  favor  of 
immersion,  why  don't  they  faithfully  follow  antiquity 
and  baptize  men,  women  and  children  naked  ?  But 
so  far  are  they  from  following  antiquity  that  they  do 
not  baptize  them  at  all,  either  naked  or  clothed ;  and 
yet  they  boast  of  following  antiquity,  and  loudly  com- 
plain that  we  do  not  copy  after  their  example  !  Well, 
while  we  regret  that  they  follow  antiquity  in  some 
things,  let  us  be  thankful  that  they  do  not  in  others, 


PLUNGING    BESET    WITH    DIFFICULTIES.  63 

for  we  certainly  do  not  wish  them  to  follow  antiquity 
as  to  the  naked  mode!  We,  however,  think  it  would  be 
much  wiser  for  them  to  follow  the  Bible  and  let  anti- 
quity go,  or  only  follow  it  as  far  as  it  followed  Christ ! 
Now  if  immersionists  infer  the  practice  of  John  the 
Baptist,  and  that  of  the  apostles,  from  the  practice  of 
the  Christians  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  they 
must  of  course  reach  the  conclusion  that  John  and 
the  apostles  baptized  men,  women  and  children  naked. 
And  if  so,  a  marvelous  scene  must  have  been  pre- 
sented at  Jordan  and  Enon  in  the  days  of  John ;  and 
a  still  more  marvelous  scene  must  have  been  pre- 
sented in  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  We 
leave  it  to  your  imagination  to  depict  the  scene  !  The 
following  quotation  from  Wall,  however,  will  some- 
what relieve  the  difficulty :  "  They,  however,  took 
great  care  for  preserving  the  modesty  of  any  woman 
who  was  to  be  baptized.  None  but  women  came 
near  till  her  body  was  in  the  water ;  then  the  priest 
came,  and  putting  her  head  also  under  water,  he 
departed  and  left  her  to  the  women."  If  this  was  the 
method  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  three  thousand 
persons  were  baptized,  the  good  sisters  in  Jerusalem 
must  have  had  a  busy  time  of  it ;  for  we  may  safely 
presume  that  sixteen  or  eighteen  hundred  of  them 
were  females,  for  in  a  revival  there  are  usually  more 
females  than  males  converted.  Before  this  day  there 
were  only  a  very  few  Christian  women  in  Jerusalem, 
and  we  may  presume  that  they  were  the  only  women 
that  would  attend  to  this  work ;  and  these  few  women, 
according  to  this  showing,  must  have  immersed  the 
bodies  of  some  sixteen  hundred  women,  while  the 


64:  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

apostles  only  popped  their  heads  under  the  water, 
and  then  left  them  to  the  women  who  put  them  in,  to 
take  them  out  again  and  dress  them.  There  was  no 
body  of  water  in  Jerusalem  in  which  three  thou- 
sand could  be  immersed,  neither  could  they  be 
immersed  in  one,  or  even  in  fifty  baths,  in  a  few 
hours;  therefore,  if  they  were  immersed  at  all,  it 
mnst  have  been  in  very  many  baths,  in  different  and 
distant  parts  of  the  city;  then  the  question  arises, 
how  could  a  few  apostles  run  all  over  the  city,  from 
bath  to  bath,  to  immerse  three  thousand  in  a  few 
hours  ?  for  "  they  were  added  to  the  Church  the  same 
day."  Moreover,  most  of  these  baths  or  cisterns 
were  in  the  hands  of  Jews,  who  were  the  deadly  ene- 
mies of  the  Christians,  and  would  not  be  likely  to  let 
the  Christians  have  their  baths.  But  a  still  greater 
difficulty  presents  itself  just  here.  How  could  the 
few  Christian  females  who  were  then  in  the  city  run 
from  bath  to  bath,  all  over  the  city,  and  put,  say  six- 
teen hundred  females  into  them,  and  take  them  out 
again  and  dress  them,  after  the  apostles  had  put  their 
heads  under  ?  How  could  they  do  all  this  in  a  few 
hours?  Now  it  is  evident  that  the  advocates  of 
immersion  must  account  for  these  or  for  still  greater 
difficulties.  It  should  be  observed,  too,  that  the 
women  baptized  the  bodies  of  the  women,  while  the 
apostles,  on  this  hypothesis,  only  baptized  their  heads ! 
Here,  too,  another  question  arises,  viz.,  which  part  of 
the  performance  was  most  orthodox,  that  of  the 
women  or  that  of  the  apostles?  One  might  say  of 
them  as  Socrates  said  of  living  and  dying,  "which  is 
best  the  gods  know,"  for  I  suppose  even  immersion- 


PLUNGIXG-    BESET    WITH    DIFFICULTIES.  65 

ists  themselves  cannot  tell.  And,  by  the  way,  there 
is  a  similar  difficulty  connected  with  modern  immer- 
sion; for  the  priest  only  plunges  about  one-half  of 
the  body,  while  the  individual  immerses  the  other 
half  by  walking  into  the  water,  so  that  there  is  only 
partial  immersion  by  the  priest  after  all ;  and  still  the 
question  remains  to  be  decided,  which  part  of  the 
body  received  Scripture  baptism  ?  Or  did  either  ? 
The  advocates  of  plunging  will  please  answer ! 

It  is  really  difficult  to  mention  any  one  religious 
dogma  that  is  more  clogged  with  difficulties  and 
absurdities  than  is  this  dogma  of  exclusive  immersion; 
nor  does  it  stop  with  difficulties  and  absurdities,  for, 
as  we  have  seen,  it  includes  positive  impossibilities  ! 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Summing  up — A  great  variety  of  Particulars  are  specified — 
Plunging  was,  and  is,  connected  with  Superstition  and  various 
Errors,  and  is  doubtless  the  Offspring  of  Superstition — Prose- 
lyting, causing  Proselytes  to  Renounce  their  Baptism  is  very 
Serious — Unreasonableness  of  the  Supposition  that  the  German 
Fanatics  discovered  what  all  the  wise  and  the  learned,  both 
ancient  and  modern,  have  failed  to  discover.  It  is  the  duty  of 
Zion's  Watchmen  to  save  their  People  from  being  Proselyted — 
The  sincerity  of  the  Anabaptists  in  crying  for  Union  under  certain 
circumstances  is  very  questionable  while  they  teach  as  they  do — 
We  are  not  at  liberty  to  reject  a  divinely  appointed  Method  and 
adopt  another,  especially  when  that  other  is  very  objectiona- 
ble in  itself — Nor  is  the  Church  at  Liberty  to  leave  to  the 
Choice  and  Whims  of  men  to  decide  whether  it  is  her  Duty  to 
teach  what  God  has  already  decided — Taylor's  Pictorial  Repre- 
sentations showing  the  Ancient  mode  of  Baptism. 

And  now,  having  said  this  much,  we  may  sum  up 
the  evidence  and  rest  our  cause.  The  amount  is 
briefly  this  :  God's  mode  of  baptizing  is  by  pouring, 
shedding,  sprinkling.  In  a  word,  by  the  baptismal 
element  falling  upon  the  party  baptized,  invariably 
so,  this,  with  all  who  believe  the  word  of  God,  is  an 
indisputable  fact.  Second,  In  the  word  of  God  that 
is  called  baptism  where  water  fell  upon  the  Israelites, 
and  upon  Nebuchadnezzar,  by  sprinkling  or  by  pour- 
ing ;  this,  too,  is  a  fact!     Third,  There  is  rot  in  all 


SUMMING    UP.  67 

God's  word  so  much  as  one  clear  text  in  favor  of 
plunging  as  being  the  divinely  appointed  mode  of 
baptism ;  this,  too,  is  a  fact !  Fourth,  God  has 
appointed  sprinkling  or  pouring,  as  the  appropriate 
sign  of  baptism  by  the  Spirit,  and  as  the  appropriate 
sign  of  cleansing  by  the  blood  of  Jesus;  this,  also,  is 
a  fact !  To  these  facts  we  may  add  a  fact  mentioned 
by  Richard  Watson,  together  with  the  inference  that 
he  draws  from  it :  "  The  superstition  of  antiquity 
appears  to  have  gone  most  in  favor  of  baptism  by 
immersion;  this  is  a  circumstance  which  affords  a 
strong  presumption  that  it  was  one  of  those  additions 
to  the  ancient  rite  which  superstition  originated." 
To  this  judicious  remark  may  be  added  the  fact  that 
superstitious  and  grossly  erroneous  sects  still  go  most 
in  favor  of  plunging.  As  instances,  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  refer  to  the  Mormons,  Campbellites  and  oth- 
ers, who,  as  is  usual  with  the  advocates  of  plunging, 
seem  to  make  plunging  the  one  thing  needful.  And, 
by  the  way,  this  fact  itself  affords  strong  reason  to 
suspect  that  plunging  is  of  superstitious  origin,  for  it 
has  always  been  the  characteristic  of  the  superstitious 
and  grossly  erroneous  to  make  their  own  inventions 
of  more  importance  than  the  teachings  of  God's  word. 
The  prominence  which  Baptists,  so  called,  give  to 
their  peculiar  dogma  is  well  known.  They  are  pro- 
verbial for  their  proselyting  proclivities.  And  the 
inducement  which  they  invariably  hold  out  to  those 
whom  they  would  proselyte  from  other  churches  is, 
that  they  will  plunge  them,  or,  as  they  prefer  to 
express  it,  immerse  them,  taking  care  to  assure  them 
that   short  of  this   there  is  no  baptism,  and,  conse- 


68  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

quently,  no  admission  to  the  Christian  Church,  no 
right  to  the  Sacrament  of  the  Supper,  and,  in  short, 
that  they  must  remain,  if  not  immersed,  "aliens  from 
the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers  from  the 
covenants  of  promise,  having  no  hope,  and  without 
God  in  the  world."  I  have  often  wondered  why 
there  was  such  a  remarkable  uniformity  among  Bap- 
tists with  regard  to  these  two  things,  viz.:  laying  great 
stress  upon  being  plunged,  and  making  mighty  efforts 
to  proselyte  from  other  Churches ;  but  I  now  see  that 
the  reason  is  obviously  this,  viz.:  Most  of  those  who 
join  that  church  are  led  to  do  so  by  the  teaching  here 
specified,  and,  consequently,  believe  that  plunging, 
and  plunging  only,  is  baptism  ;  and  for  this  reason 
they  recognize  all  others,  all  who  have  not  been 
plunged,  as  being  excluded  from  the  commonwealth 
of  Israel,  as  stated  above.  And  now  being  in  the 
Church,  and  constantly  under  the  same  teaching, 
the  original  impression  becomes  more  and  more  deep, 
and  they,  of  course,  become  more  and  more  bigoted 
and  exclusive,  and,  looking  upon  all  outside  of  their 
Church  as  being  in  the  deplorable  condition  of  unbap- 
tized  heathen,  they  soon  become  zealously  engaged 
in  the  work  of  proselyting,  and  to  obtain  prose- 
lytes they  hold  out  the  same  inducements  that  had 
been  held  out  to  themselves,  and  that  had  proved 
successful.  Hence  it  is  that  Anabaptists  are  so 
unanimous  in  this  particular,  especially  in  connection 
with  a  revival  which  may  be  progressing  in  a  given 
locality;  then  immersion  is  their  alpha  and  their 
omega ;  and  consequently,  those  who  join  them  do  so, 
in  most  instances,  on  this  single  consideration.    Thus 


SUMMING    UP.  60 

it  is  that  plunging  and  proselyting  go  together !  This 
attempt  to  account  for  the  proselyting  proclivities  of 
the  Anabaptists,  and  for  their  zeal  and  unanimity  in 
this  regard,  is  really  the  best  apology  we  can  make 
for  them;  for  if  they  believe  that  those  whom  they 
proselyte,  or  attempt  to  proselyte,  from  other  churches, 
are  really  in  the  covenant  of  grace  and  in  the  fold  of 
Christ,  their  proselyting  practices  deserve  much 
severe  censure. 

But  however  we  may  apologize  for  the  proselyting 
practices  of  the  Anabaptists,  it  must  still  appear  to 
be  a  very  serious  matter  when  it  is  remembered  that 
they  cause  all  whom  they  proselyte  from  other 
churches,  to  renounce  their  previous  baptism  as  being 
no  baptism,  and,  consequently,  to  recognize  and 
declare  their  plunging  to  be  the  only  baptism !  Now  it 
is  not  possible,  on  calm  reflection,  to  view  this  as  being 
a  matter  of  little  or  no  importance.  Just  look  at  it 
again*  Here  are  those  who  say  that  God,  for  Christ's 
sake,  has  pardoned  their  sins,  that  He  has  given  them 
the  spirit  of  adoption  whereby  we  cry,  "Abba, 
Father."  That  spirit  now  bears  witness  with  their 
spirits  that  they  are  the  children  of  God ;  they  were 
baptized,  say  by  their  spiritual  father,  who  has  grown 
old  and  gray-headed  in  the  service  of  his  Master,  and 
whose  labors,  by  the  Divine  blessing,  have  been 
instrumental  in  the  salvation  of  multitudes  ;  and  by 
Him  these  persons  have  been  received  to  the  commun- 
ion of  saints,  amongst  whom  they  have  lived,  we  may 
suppose,  for  several  years,  rejoicing  in  hope  of  the 
glory  of  God ;  and  being  fed  with  the  bread  of  life 
by  that  same  spiritual   Father,  and  being  helped  on 


70  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

their  way  by  those  with  whom  they  first  united,  they 
are  still  going  on.  their  way  rejoicing.  Now  let  us 
suppose  that  one  of  these  Anabaptists  comes  along 
and  artfully  persuades  some  of  these,  perhaps 
inexperienced  and  unsuspecting,  that  they  never 
received  Christian  baptism,  that  they  must  follow 
Christ  down  into  the  water,  that  they  must  be  buried 
with  Him  in  baptism,  that  Philip  and  the  Eunuch 
went  down  into  the  water  and  came  up  out  of  the 
water.  And  after  mixing  up  all  these  terms  so  as 
to  convey  the  idea  that  they  all  mean  immersion,  for 
h.e  will  not  use  the  word  plunge,  though  he  means  it, 
he  sums  up  by  assuring  those  unsuspecting  and  inex- 
perienced ones  that. sprinkling  is  a  modern  invention,  an 
invention  of  popery,  that  immersion  was  the  only  mode 
practiced  for  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years !  Finally, 
in  short,  he  persuades  them  to  renounce  their  former 
baptism,  as  not  being  Christian  baptism,  and  leads 
them  down  to  the  river  and  plunges  them  under  the 
water.  The  work  is  now  complete  ;  with  their  former 
baptism  they  have  been  persuaded  to  renounce  their 
former  Church  as  not  being  a  Christian  Church,  and 
those  hitherto  recognized  and  loved  as  Christian 
brethren  and  sisters  are  recognized  and  loved  as  such 
no  longer;  they  will  no  longer  with  them  surround 
the  Lord's  table,  as  they  had  been  wont  to  do,  nor 
will  they  allow  them  to  come  and  surround  the  table 
that  is  spread  in  their  new  home ;  nor  will  they  sit  at 
the  Sacramental  table  with  the  venerable  man  whom 
they  long  loved  as  their  spiritual  father,  or  if  they 
would,  those  who  have  proselyted  them  will  not  allow 
them,  nor  will   they  allow  him  to   come  and    partake 


SUMMING    UP.  71 

with  them;  already  there  is  fixed  between  them  a 
great  gulf!  These  are  facts,  and  with  such  facts  I 
could  fill  many  pages,  and  it  was  the  repetition  of 
such  facts,  of  late,  that  led  me  to  preach  and  write 
as,  I  have  now  done.  I  say  the  repetition,  for  with 
such  doings  as  these  I  have  often  been  pained  and 
grieved  for  many  years ;  and  I  am  sure  that  my  expe- 
rience in  this  particular  is  not  much  different  from 
that  of  other  ministers  who  have  labored  where  the 
Anabaptists  had  a  Church.  It  was  thus  that  their 
fathers  commenced  their  operations  in  the  days  of 
Martin  Luther,  as  we  shall  by  and  by  show,  and  thoir 
children  but  too  faithfully  copy  after  their  example. 
Now,  whether  we  believe  that  the  baptism  thus 
renounced  was,  or  wTas  not,  Christian  baptism,  the 
case  is  a  very  serious  one.  If  it  was  not,  then  all 
ministers  except  those  of  the  Anabaptist  persuasion, 
are  leading  the  people  astray,  and  both  themselves 
and  their  people  are  unbaptized,  as  were  the  countless 
millions  of  ministers  and  members  who  have  lived  and 
died  in  other  than  the  Anabaptist  denomination  in  past 
ages ;  and  all.  this  notwithstanding  the  great  learning, 
great  knowledge,  thorough  investigations,  marvelous 
researches,  deep  piety  and  unquestioned  holiness  of 
multitudes  of  them ;  yes,  notwithstanding  all  this,  we 
must  conclude,  if  these  proselyting  Anabaptists  be 
correct,  that  they  all  died  ignorant  and  destitute  of 
Christian  baptism !  And  it  was  reserved  for  such 
men  as  the  ignorant  and  fanatical  John  Mathias,  a 
baker  of  Haerlem,  and  John  Boccold,  a  journeyman 
tailor  of  Leyden,in  Germany,  to  obtain  a  knowledge 
of  Christian  baptism,  while  the  learned  and  studious 


72  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

Melancthon,  and  the  great  reformer,  Luther,  were  left 
to  live  and  die  alike  ignorant  and  destitute  of  it !  But  if 
all  this  be  too  monstrous  to  be  believed,  then  we  are 
forced  to  the  startling  conclusion  that  these  proselyting 
re-baptizers  renounce  Christian  baptism,  declaring  it 
to  be  no  baptism,  and  lead  others,  especially  the  inexpe- 
rienced and  unsuspecting  youth  who  have  recently 
been  both  converted  and  baptized,  to  do  the  same, 
simply  because  they  were  baptized  by  sprinkling  or 
pouring ;  and  this  is  done  in  defiance  of  the  facts, 
the  indisputable  facts,  that  God  instituted  sprinkling 
and  pouring,  and  that  he  calls  sprinkling  and  pour- 
ing baptism,  and  that  he  himself  has  invariably 
baptized  by  pouring,  never  by  plunging;  and, 
finally,  that  no  man  living  can  refer  us  to  a  single  text 
of  Scripture  to  show  that  God  ever  appointed  or 
practiced  plunging. 

We  have  already  specified  the  chapters  and  verses 
where  all  these  facts,  except  the  last,  are  asserted  by 
some  of  the  plainest  and  most  unmistakable  utter- 
ances that  have  ever  reached  us  from  the  lips  of  the 
Most  High  !  And  the  last  is  the  fact  that  he  has 
not  appointed  or  practiced  plunging  as  the  mode  of 
baptism,  at  least  that  no  man  can  show  us  where  He 
has  done  so.  If  any  can  refer  us  to  the  chapter  and 
verse,  let  them  do  so,  and  if  they  do  we  will  give  up  this 
fact,  but  even  then  all  the  other  facts  will  remain  !  It 
is  evident,  then,  that  the  practice  of  the  re-baptizers 
is  serious,  awfully  serious.  God  pardons,  regenerates, 
adopts  and  baptizes  precious  souls,  and  they  pronounce 
that  baptism  no  baptism,  and  cause  the  parties  thus 
baptized  to  do  the  same  thing.     God  seals  his  child- 


SUMMING    UP.  73 

ren  with  the  seal  of  the  Christian  covenant,  and  they 
efface  or  attempt  to  efface  that  seal  and  pronounce  it 
no  seal.  And  for  that  baptism  they  substitute  plung- 
ing, and  for  that  plunging,  as  the  mode  of  baptism, 
they  cannot  produce  one  clear  text  from  God's  word, 
while,  at  the  same  time,  it  is  a  positive  fact,  if  the 
Bible  be  true,  that  God  both  teaches  and  practices 
baptism  by  sprinkling  and  pouring.  I  say  this  is 
serious,  awfully  serious.  And  I  give  it  as  my  solemn 
conviction  that  when  these  re-baptizers  approach  any 
church  to  pronounce  its  members  unbaptized  and  to 
persuade  them  to  renounce  their  baptism,  leave  their 
church,  be  plunged  and  join  the  church  of  the  re-bap- 
tizers, they  should  be  rebuked  and  repelled  with  all 
diligence  and  by  the  use  of  every  proper  means.  I 
believe  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of  God's  watchmen  to 
do  so,  and  they  are  recreant  to  their  trust  if  they  per- 
mit the  re-baptizers  or,  any  others,  to  come  in  and 
unsettle,  pervert  and  lead  away  their  young  converts 
and  others  who,  in  consequence  of  inexperience  and 
limited  knowledge  in  some  things,  are  liable  to  be  led 
astray  by  designing  men,  whose  object  is  to  build  up 
their  own  organization,  and  thus,  as  Paul  expresses 
it,  "make  a  gain  of  them  f  or,  as  Jude  expresses  it, 
"having  men's  persons  in  admiration  because  of 
advantage."  This,  we  are  confident,  is  the  object  of 
many  of  these  proselyting  teachers,  while  many  of 
their  members,  it  is  hoped,  are  simply  guided  by  a 
mistaken  zeal.  But  whatever  may  be  the  motives  of 
these  proselyters,  it  is  unquestionably  the  duty  of  the 
Christian  shepherd  to  watch  over  the  flock  committed 
to  his  care,  and  not  allow  these  proselyters  to  steal 
7 


74  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

away  his  sheep.  If,  however,  the  Anabaptists  honestly 
believe  that  there  is  no  baptism,  no  entrance  to  the 
Christian  Church  but  by  plunging,  and  no  Church 
but  that  which  is  composed  of  those  who  have  been 
baptized  by  plunging,  let  them  go  out  into  the  world 
and  convert  sinners,  and  then  let  them  plunge,  dip  or 
immerse  them;  any  way  so  that  they  bring  them  to 
heaven;  but  let  them  not  undertake  to  pervert  and 
steal  the  members  of  other  churches  by  telling  them 
that  such  churches  are  not  Christian  churches,  and 
that  their  baptism  is  not  Christian  baptism — let  them 
not  do  this.  Neither  let  them,  as  they  often  do, 
especially  at  a  time  of  revival,  cry  out  for  a  union 
with  us  while  they  thus  believe  and  teach  concerning 
us.  We  really  believe  that  union  is  an  impossibility 
while  they  thus  believe  and  teach,  nor  can  they  blame 
us  for  questioning  their  sincerity  when  they  cry  for 
union  under  such  circumstances.  And  I  here  give 
due  notice  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  that  I  will, 
God  being  my  helper,  promptly  drive  from  the  fold 
of  which  I  am  the  appointed  shepherd,  all  who  may 
approach  it  for  the  purpose  of  stealing  the  sheep  under 
my  care ;  nor  will  I,  in  future,  allow  the  too  often 
deceptive  and  hypocritical  cry  of  union  to  prevent 
my-  doing  so.  And  I  shall  consider  it  my  special 
duty  to  look  after  those  who  may  be  converted  by 
our  own  labors ;  these  are  emphatically  our  children, 
and  we  may  not  allow  them  to  be  stolen  from  us.  I 
have  in  the  past,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  been  more 
tolerant  with  proselyters  than  I  mean  to  be  in  the 
future.  I  feel  a  good  deal  like  the  honest  Quaker  of 
whom  it  is  said  that  he  held  to  his  principle  of  non- 


SUMMING    UP.  75 

resistance  till  the  pirates  were  boarding  his  ship,  then 
lie  seized  his  cutlass  and  began  to  chop  off  their 
1  lands,  exclaiming,  "  Keep  thou  thine  and  we'll  keep 
ours!"  That's  my  principle  exactly.  And  I  wish  all 
to  understand  it.  And  I  think  that  is  the  proper  way 
to  have  union.  And  those  who  would  not  have  their 
hands  cut  off  must  give  over  their  piratical  practices 
and  keep  on  board  their  own  ship  ! 

Finally,  I  take  it,  that  where  full  and  explicit  direc- 
tions are  not  given  in  the  New  Testament  with  regard 
to  the  observance  of  any  ordinance  clearly  of  Divine 
appointment,  such  directions  are  to  be  sought  for  in 
the  Old  Testament ;  and  if  we  there  find  clear  and 
explicit  directions  given  by  the  Almighty  and  prac- 
ticed by  the  Old  Testament  church,  these  are  obvi- 
ously the  directions  to  be  followed ;  and  we  are  not 
at  liberty  to  give  directions  of  our  own  invention  as 
a  substitute  for  them,  simply  because  they  were  not 
formally  repeated  in  the  New  Testament.  Now,  it  is 
a  fact,  as  we  have  already  shown,  that  full  and 
explicit  directions  are  given  in  the  Old  Testament  to  use 
water  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  as  a  sign  of  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit,  and  also  as  a  sign  of  moral  cleansing  by  the 
blood  of  Jesus ;  and  as  we  know  that  baptism  is  a 
sign  of  both  these,  we  are  bound  to  follow  these  Old 
Testament  directions,  especially  as  the  prophets  had 
already  apprized  us  that  Jesus  would  "sprinkle  many 
nations,"  and  as  we  know  that  he  actually  and  invari- 
ably baptizes  by  pouring,  and  also  that  he  sprinkles 
the  hearts  of  his  people  from  an  evil  conscience.  See 
Heb.  x.  22.  While  furnished  with  such  precept  and 
example,  so  full  and  clear,  I  really  think  that  we  are 


76  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

not  at  liberty  to  invent  a  new  method ;  much  less  are 
we  at  liberty  to  invent  a  method  that  is  utterly 
without  precedent  and  that  cannot  be  used  either  as 
a  sign  or  as  a  seal;  nor  do  I  think  that  we  are  at 
liberty  to  leave  each  one  to  choose  a  method  of  his 
own,  simply  because  the  method  Divinely  appointed 
and  practiced  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation 
is  not  formally  re-enacted  under  the  New!  To  carry 
out  this  rule  would  be  utterly  disastrous  to  the 
Christian  system.  Of  the  truth  of  this  statement  any 
one  will  be  convinced  by  a  little  reflection.  For 
instance,  by  this  rule  we  would  do  away  with  the 
Christian  Sabbath,  we  would  exclude  females  from 
the  Holy  Sacrament,  we  would  do  away  with  family 
worship,  and,  in  short,  as  we  ..have  already  said,  to 
carry  out  this  rule  would  be  utterly  ruinous  to  the 
Christian  system ;  but  if  we  follow  the  common  sense 
rule,  to  observe  and  do  all  that  the  Lord  our  G  od  has 
commanded,  and  never  abrogated,  all  will  be  well. 
But  if  I  should  do  away  with  God's  method  of  apply- 
ing the  sign  and  seal,  certainly  plunging  is  the  last 
method  I  should  think  of,  for  the  idea  of  plunging  for 
sealing  is  absurd  in  the  last  degree,  nor  is  there  any- 
thing in  the  Christian  religion  of  which  it  is  a  sisn ! 

o  o  o 

And,  though  I  admit  that  many  human  inventions 
were  connected  with  Christian  baptism,  even  at  an 
early  period,  I  do  not  admit  that  baptism  proper  was 
utterly  done  away  with  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  was 
retained,  and  like  many  other  things  of  Divine 
appointment,  it  seemed  extremely  difficult  to  get  rid 
of  it.  Like  truth,  it  lived  in  the  very  rubbish  of 
error;  for,  after  passing  through  their  various  wash- 
ings and  other   inventions,   the  finale  was  •baptism 


SUMMING    UP.  77 

proper  by  effusion.  Of  the  truth  of  this  observation, 
Taylor,  in  his  Facts  and  Evidences,  gives  us  very 
convincing  proof.  This  scholarly  and  laborious 
investigator  of  this  subject  has  presented  us  with 
twelve  fac-similes  or  pictorial  representations  of  the 
mode  of  baptism  as  administered  by  the  ancients.  In 
the  course  of  his  investigations  and  researches  he  found 
theni  in  ancient  churches  and  other  places  in  the  East. 
They  are  the  work  of  Grecian  and  Roman  artists, 
and  unmistakably  represent  the  practice  of  the  times 
to  which  they  belong ;  and  every  one  of  them  repre- 
sents the  final  act,  baptism  proper,  as  being  adminis- 
tered by  effusion.  Some  of  them  profess  to  represent 
the  baptism  of  our  blessed  Lord  by  John ;  one  pro- 
fesses to  represent  the  baptism  of  the  Emperor  Con- 
stantine  ;  another  represents  the  baptism  of  a  King 
and  Queen,  and  others  represent  the  baptism  of  other 
persons,  some  named  and  others  not ;  but  in  every 
instance  the  water  is  represented  as  falling  upon  the 
subject,  With  these  representations  before  us,  we 
can  but  say  with  Mr.  Taylor:  "They  are  vouchers 
for  the  time  in  which  they  were  executed ;  and,  though 
we  cannot  hear  the  men  of  that  generation  viva  voce, 
and  we  dare  not  put  words  into  their  lips,  yet  we  may 
see  their  testimony  and  judge  of  its  relevancy  to  the 
inquiry  that  engages  our  attention  !" 

But  all  this  avails  nothing  with  certain  men  ;  they 
still  cry  out,  as  they  plunge,  "  There  was  no  other 
wTay  practiced  for  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years." 
But  they  probably  know  nothing  about  the  editor  of 
Calmet's  Dictionary,  or  about  his  facts  either;  and, 
very  likely,  they  do  not  desire  to  know,  for  assertion 
answers  their  purpose  much  better. 


INFANT   BAPTISM. 
CHAPTER    X. 

Bitter  opposition  of  Antipedobaptists  to  Infant  Baptism — Grounds 
of  their  opposition  examined  and  refuted. 

Bitterly  as  the  Anabaptists  are  opposed  to  baptism 
by  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  they  are  still  more  opposed 
to  the  baptism  of  children  by  any  mode.  To  infant 
baptism  they  seem  to  retain  the  same  bitterness  that 
characterized  the  founders  of  their  church,  who,  as 
D'Aubigne  tells  us,  said,  "Baptism  is  the  baptism  of 
a  dog ;  there  is  no  more  use  in  baptizing  an  infant  than 
in  baptizing  a  cat."  While  in  other  particulars  they 
differ  very  much  and  very  honorably,  from  their  igno- 
rant and  fanatical  fathers,  in  this,  we  must  say,  they 
but  too  nearly  resemble  them  :  it  is  well  known  that 
they  usually  speak  of  the  baptism  of  infants  with  con- 
tempt and  bitterness ;  indeed  they  do  not  call  it  bap- 
tism at  all,  but  "infant  sprinkling."  Though  the 
child  is  consecrated  to  the  adorable  Trinit}^  in  the 
most  solemn  manner,  by  God's  minister,  in  the  use  of 
the  most  appropriate  and  impressive  ceremony,  and 
accompanied  by  the  most  devout  prayers  of  the  whole 
church  as  they  bow  before  the  Lord  in  his  house,  yet 


GROUNDS    OF    OPPOSITION    EXAMINED.  79 

all  this  is  treated  with  contempt.  And,  although 
they  do  not  use  the  coarse  language  of  their  fathers, 
as  quoted  above,  yet  the  best  they  can  do  is  to  pro- 
nounce it  "infant  sprinkling,"  that  is  all  it  amounts 
to  !  Though  the  minister,  the  believing  parents,  and 
the  church  consecrated  the  child  to  the  adorable  Trin- 
ity, Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  applying  the  seal 
of  the  covenant,  and  offering  up  the  most  devout  pray- 
ers, still  these  sapient  ones  can  see  no  more  religion 
in  it  than  they  can  see  in  the  act  of  the  servant-maid 
when  she  applies  water  to  the  child's  face  before  dress- 
ing it ;  in  either  case  it  is  only  infant  sprinkling ; 
that  is  all ! 

But  what  reason  do  they  assign  for  all  this  ?  What 
do  they  offer  in  justification  hereof?  Certainly 
nothing  short  of  very  serious  and  weighty  consider- 
ations will  justify  this,  if  anything  will.  Do  they 
claim  that  God  has  positively  forbidden  the  baptism 
of  children  ?  That  he  has  positively  commanded, 
saying,  "Thou  shalt  not  baptize  thy  children  at  all ?  " 
No,  they  claim  nothing  of  the  sort ;  no  one,  however 
extravagant,  ever  claimed  that  there  was  any  such 
command  in  God's  book.  What  then?  Do  they 
claim  that  this  solemn  consecration  corrupts  the  child- 
ren, and  makes  them  more  wicked  than  the  children 
that  are  not  baptized.  ?  No,  I  think  no  one  claims 
this.  Why,  then,  are  they  so  bitterly  opposed  to 
infant  baptism?  What  reason  or  reasons  do  they 
offer  as  a  justification  of  their  bitter  opposition  and 
contempt  of  infant  baptism?  They  shall  speak  for 
themselves.  We  believe  the  sum  of  all  their  reasons 
are  the  following : 


80  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

They  say  the  command  is  to  baptize  those  who 
believe;  but  the  child  cannot  believe,  ergo,  the  child 
should  not  be  baptized !  In  support  of  this  strange 
reasoning  they  quote  the  following  texts  :  Acts  viii.  35, 
37.  The  Kunuch  said,  "  What  doth  hinder  me  to  be 
baptized  ?  "  And  Philip  said,  "  If  thou  believest  with 
all  thy  heart,  thoumayest."  Mark  xvi.  16.  "  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  Here  it  is  assumed 
that  what  God  says  to,  or  of,  an  adult,  applies  equally 
to  an  infant !  Really  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  an 
assumption  more  absurd  than  this.  There  are  so 
many  things  wrong  here,  that  one  hardly  knows  where 
to  commence  to  point  them  out.  It  is  assumed  that 
God  makes  no  discrimination  between  an  infant  and 
an  adult;  that  the  provisions  of  the  atonement  are 
offered  to  the  adult  and  to  the  infant  upon  the  same 
terms ;  that  all  God  says  to  the  adult  race  of  man- 
kind, applies  equally  to  infants;  that  you  must  not 
limit  one  jot  or  tittle  of  all  he  says  to  the  adult  race 
of  mankind  unless  he  distinctly  tells  you  to  do  so ! 
Can  anything  exceed  this  in  extravagance  and 
unreasonableness  ?  In  this  way  you  would  first  starve 
to  death,  and  then  damn  all  children,  and  prove  con- 
clusively that  God  had  so  appointed ;  for  he  says, 
"  if  any  will  not  work  neither  should  he  eat ; "  and 
he  also  says,  "  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 
But  infants  can  neither  work  nor  believe,  therefore 
they  must  first  be  starved  to  death  and  then  damned ! 
Now  this  is  precisely  the  reasoning  by  which  infants 
are  excluded  from  the  rite  of  baptism:  in  each  case 
the  conclusion  is  reached  by  assuming   that  infants 


GROUNDS    OF    OPPOSITION     EXAMINED,  81 

are  included,  where  adults  only  are  intended!  In 
this  way  precisely,  it  was,  that  tlirf  ancient  sect  of 
heretics  called  Hieraxites,  concluded  that  all  children 
dying  in  childhood  would  be  damned,  for  they  consid- 
ered knowledge  the  procuring  cause  of  salvation,  and 
essential  to  it ;  and  as  infants  had  not,  and  could  not 
have  knowledge,  they  concluded  they  could  not  be 
saved  !  And  they  could  establish  their  position  just 
as  satisfactorily  as  the  Anabaptists  establish  theirs, 
for  Paul  says,  "  Faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hear- 
ing by  the  Word  of  God."  But  infants  are  obviously 
incapable  of  hearing  and  knowing  the  teachings  of 
God's  Word,  and  consequently  incapable  of  faith ; 
and  Jesus  says  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned. 
Hence  the  same  conclusion  is  reached,  children  can- 
not be  saved.  Moreover  Jesus  has  said,  "  this  is  life 
eternal,  to  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus 
Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  But  children  cannot 
have  this  knowledge,  therefore  they  cannot  have  "life 
eternal !  "  Thus  the  reasoning  of  the  ancient  Hier- 
axites, and  that  of  the  modern  Anabaptists,  are 
exactly  the  same,  and  the  conclusion  the  same  ;  only 
in  the  one  case  the  damnation  of  children  is  asserted, 
in  the  other  the  reasoners  do  not  assert  it,  though 
their  reasoning  being  the  same  implies  it;  for  if  the 
commission  given  to  the  disciples  proves  that  infants 
cannot  be  baptized,  because  they  cannot  believe,  it  as 
conclusively  proves  that  they  cannot  be  saved,  that 
they  must  be  damned.  Nay,  there  is  more  reason 
for  the  latter  than  there  is  for  the  former  conclusion, 
for  Jesus  does  not  say,  he  that  believeth  not  shall  not 
be  baptized,  but  he  does  say,  he  that  believeth  not 


82  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

shall  be  damned.  And  even  if  he  had  said,  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  not  be  baptized,  even  then  it  would 
not  follow  that  infants  should  not  be  baptized,  for  the 
objects  of  the  threat  are  obviously  those  to  whom  the 
Gospel  should  be  preached,  but  the  Apostles  were 
not  sent  out  into  the  world  to  preach  the  Gospel  to 
infants,  therefore  the  threat  had  nothing  to  do  with 
infants,  it  neither  excluded  them  from  baptism  nor 
from  heaven,  any  more  than  it  excluded  from  heaven 
those  adults  in  heathen  lands,  who  never  had  the 
chance  either  to  hear  a  preached  gospel,  or  to  be 
baptized.  The  argument  which  Anabaptists  deduce, 
or  pretend  to  deduce  from  Philip's  address  to  the 
Eunuch  is,  of  course,  based  upon  the  same  ridiculous 
assumption ;  they  assume  that  what  Philip  says  to  the 
Eunuch  equally  applies  to  infants  ;  that  all  infants  are 
to  be  saved  and  baptized  upon  precisely  the  same  con- 
ditions that  the  Eunuch  was ;  and  they  would  have 
us  address  all  infants  just  as  Philip  addressed  the 
"  man  of  Ethiopia,  an  Eunuch  of  great  authority  under 
Candace,  Queen  of  the  Ethiopians,  who  had  the 
charge  of  all  her  treasure,  and  had  come  to  Jerusalem 
to  worship."  Yes,  the  assumption  is  that  all  infants 
must  be  treated  precisely  as  was  this  great  official, 
and  saved  and  baptized  on  the  very  same  conditions ! 
Is  it  not  marvelous  that  any  intelligent  person  should 
assume  and  reason  in  this  way  ?  And  yet,  it  is  upon 
this  assumption,  principally,  that  the  Anabaptists  base 
all  their  opposition  to  infant  baptism ;  they  are  ever 
and  anon  quoting  these  texts  to  prove  that  infants 
should  not  be  baptized  because  they  cannot  believe. 
And  why  ?     Because,    forsooth,    Philip   said  to   the 


GROUNDS    OF    OPPOSITION    EXAMINED.  83 

Eunuch,  "  If  thou  believest  with  all  thy  heart,  thoir 
mayest  be  baptized,"  therefore  they  would  have  all 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  deal  with  infants  just  as 
Philip  dealt  with  this  great  official,  the  Ethiopian 
Eunuch,  who  came  to  Jerusalem  to  worship  ! 

Anabaptists  say  there  is  no  command  in  the  New 
Testament  to  baptize  infants,  therefore  they  should 
not  be  baptized.  This  argument,  if  it  may  be  called 
an  argument,  is  like  all  the  preceding  ;  it  rests  upon  a 
mere  assumption,  which  is  little,  if  anything,  better 
than  the  assumptions  already  exposed  and  refuted. 
The  assumption  is  this ;  that  no  command  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  binding,  or  to  be  observed,  unless  for- 
mally repeated  in  the  New.  This  assumption,  if  fully 
carried  out,  would  be  little  less  disastrous  than  the  pre- 
ceding. Now,  with  regard  to  the  commands  and 
teachings  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  question  is  not,  are 
they  repeated  in  the  New  ?  but  are  they  abrogated  in 
the  New  ?  If  not,  of  course  the  obligation  to  obey, 
remains  unchanged  and  unabated  ;  and  must  continue 
till  the  law  in  the  given  case  is  abrogated  by  Him  who 
enacted  it.  Now  every  Christian  knows,  or  should 
know, that  the  law  with  regard  to  children  was  enacted 
in  the  days  of  Abraham,  and  its  observance  made  bind- 
ing upon  the  Church,  and  it  has  been  observed  by  the 
church  of  God,  without  intermission,  from  then  until 
now  ;  and  that  law  is  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  it  is  not  abrogated  in  the  New  !  These  are  the 
facts  in  the  case,  and  such  facts  as  defy  successful 
contradiction.  Now,  the  law  is  simply  this ;  that 
children  should  be  circumcised,  even  as  soon  as  they 
were   eight  days  old,  and  that  circumcision  was  the 


84:  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

rite  of  initiation  into  the  Church ;  it  was  also  the 
seal  of  the  Covenant;  nay,  St.  Paul  tells  ns  that  it 
was  the  sign,  and  seal,  of  righteousness  had  previous 
to  the  performance  of  the  rite.  Now,  then,  here  is  the 
fact,  the  indisputable  fact;  that  rite  which  included 
all  that  we  have  here  specified,  was,  by  the  command 
of  God,  extended  to  children,  even  as  soon  as  they 
were  eight  days  old  !  But  I  will  be  told  that  baptism 
does  not  take  the  place  of  circumcision;  I  answer,  I 
care  not  a  rush,  I  am  not  talking  about  that  just  now, 
we  will  attend  to  that  in  due  time.  What  I  claim 
just  now  is  simply  this ;  at  the  time  that  the  church 
was  formally  organized,  the  covenant  between  God 
and  his  people  was  ratified  with  Abraham,  who,  with 
his  children,  received  the  seal  of  that  covenant,  and 
this  seed  was  at  the  same  time  the  sign  and  seal  of 
righteousness  previously  had,  and  it  was  also  the 
rite  of  initiation  into  the  church  of  God.  And  all 
this,  by  the  command  of  God,  to  as  secured  to  the 
infant  in  common  with  the  parent,  and  this  command 
was  never  abrogated  !  Now,  we  repeat  the  statement, 
and  we  repeat  it  with  increased  emphasis,  the  question 
is  not  whether  this  command  is  repeated  in  the  New 
Testament ;  the  question  is,  is  it  abrogated  in  the 
New  Testament  ?  To  this  question  there  is  but  one 
answer,  and  that  is  no  !  We  affirm  that  God  lias  not 
canceled  this  command,  nor  has  he  canceled  one  jot 
or  tittle  of  the  rights,  privileges  and  blessings  which 
it  secures  to  children  ;  and  if  the  Anabaptists  under- 
take to  do  so,  they  do  it  on  their  own  authority,  and 
at  their  own  risk.  Instead,  then,  of  the  Anabaptists 
asking  us,  where  is  this  command  in  the  New  Testa- 


GROUNDS    OF    OPPOSITION    EXPLAINED.  85 

ment?  we  ask  them  where  is  it  abrogated  in  the  New 
Testament  ?  And  till  they  can  point  to  the  positive 
annulment,  or  repeal  of  this  law,  they  are  bound  to  do 
as  we  do;  and  if  they  still  refuse  to  obey  this  con- 
fessedly unrepealed  law  of  God,  they  do  so  at  their 
own  risk,  and  we  must  recognize  them  as  transgres- 
sors of  that  law  ;  and  as  attempting  to  deprive  chil- 
dren of  rights  and  blessings  secured  to  them  by  the 
blood  of  the  covenant,  and  by 'the  promise  and  c@m- 
mand  of  the  Most  High.  We  say  the  promise  and 
the  command  :  for  when  God  made  the  covenant  with 
Abraham,  and  specified  the  rights  and  blessings  thus 
secured,  he  added,  "  thee  and  thy  seed,"  and  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  this  promise  was  repeated  in  these 
words,  "  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children. ' 
The  practice  of  attempting  to  annul  or  evade  a 
Divine  law  that  was  enacted  long  ago,  simply  because 
it  has  not  been  re-enacted,  is  as  absurd  as  it  is  perni- 
cious. Suppose  one  should  attempt  to  evade  or  annul 
some  of  the  laws  of  this  State  or  nation,  and  plead  in 
justification  the  fact  that  they  were  not  re-enacted  at 
the  last  session  of  the  Legislature;  would  not  the 
very  children  tell  him  that  re-enactment  was  not 
necessary.  That  every  law  remained  in  force,  till 
repealed  by  the  power  that  enacted  it  ?  And  this  is 
specially  true  of  the  laws  of  God.  Yet  the  Anabap- 
tists attempt  to  evade,  or  annul  the  law  under  consid- 
eration, simply  because  it  has  not  been  formally 
re-enacted  or  repeated  in  the  New  Testament!  I  say 
formally,  for  it  has  been  repeated,  though  not  with 
its  original  formality,  for  this  was  not  necessary. 


CHAPTER  XL 

It  is  shown  that  Infant  Baptism  takes  the  place  of  Circumcision — 
Early  Christian  Fathers  are  quoted — Testimony  of  Pelagius — 
The  Antipedobaptist  dogma  one  of  the  most  modern  of  reli- 
gious errors — Baxter  is  quoted — Other  Fathers  are  quoted. 

Though  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  to  the  validity  of 
the  position  here  taken  to  prove  that  baptism  takes 
the  place  of  circumcision,  yet  being  convinced  that  it 
does,  I  will  make  a  few  remarks  which  I  think  will 
satisfy  the  unprejudiced  that  it  does. 

Circumcision  and  the  passover  are  unquestionably 
done  away  with  by  Him  who  appointed  them.  And 
Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  unquestionably 
appointed  by  the  same  authority.  The  doing  away 
of  the  former,  and  the  appointment  of  the  latter,  took 
place  at  the  same  time,  and  the  disuse  of  the  former, 
and  the  use  of  the  latter,  have  continued  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church  to  the  present  day  ;  and  it  is  not  ques- 
tioned that  the  supper  takes  the  place  of  the  passover; 
and,  if  baptism  does  not  take  the  place  of  circum- 
cision, then  we  have  nothing  in  its  place.  But  the 
truth  is,  this  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  saying  and 
unsaying,  and  such  saying  and  unsaying  as  leave  the 
f  icts  unaltered  ;  for  the  facts  that  circumcision  was 
done  away  with,  and  baptism  introduced  at  the  same 


SUBSTITUTED    FOR    CIRCUMCISION.  b* 

time,  and  by  the  same  authority,  remain  facts,  what- 
ever we  may  say.     And  it  is  both  folly  and  contradic- 
tion to  say  that  the  one  does  not  take  the  place  of  the 
other:  and  especially   when  it  is   remembered    and 
admitted,  as  it  must  be,  that  baptism  is  what  circum- 
cision was;  viz.,   a  sign  and  seal,  and  also   an  initia- 
tory rite.     The  amount  is  this,  to  express  it  still  more 
briefly :  He  who  appointed  circumcision  for  the  pur- 
poses here  specified,  has  appointed  baptism  for  the 
same  specified  purposes ;    and  the  annulment  of  the 
one,  and  the  appointment  of  the   other,  took  place  at 
the  same  time.     Now,  to  admit  all  this,  and  yet  deny 
that  the  one  takes  the  place  of  the  other,  is,  I  main- 
tain,   folly   and   self-contradiction.      Folly,   because 
nothing  is  gained   by   it,  for  the  facts  remain,  and 
they   comprehend   all   we   claim,  viz :    the  rights  of 
children  under  the  present  as  under  the  former  dis- 
pensation.      And   it   is    self-contradiction,    for    that 
which  is  denied  is  the  very  same  that  has  been  admit- 
ted by  admitting  the  facts,  which  must  be  admitted ; 
and  the  facts  comprehend  all  we  claim.     Our  claims, 
therefore,  are  established  with  all   the  certainty  of 
fact,  notwithstanding  the  play  upon  the  words  take 
the  place  of,  for  the  objection  is  really  a  play  upon 
these  words.     It  is  admitted  that  the  one  was  remov- 
ed,  and    the    other    appointed,  and  that  the  latter 
answers  the  purposes  of   the  former,  and  yet  it  is 
denied  that  the  latter  takes  the  j)lace  of  the  former ! 
Nonsense  !  the  fact  is,  no  man  would  ever  have  said 
so  had  it  not  appeared  to  him  that  the   admission 
would  militate  against  his  system. 


8S  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

Water  baptism  is  substituted  for  circumcision  be- 
cause, while  it  answers  all  the  purposes  of  the  former, 
as  specified  above,  it  does  more.  It  is  more  conge- 
nial with  the  milder  dispensation  of  the  Gospel, 
which  is  emphatically  the  dispensation  of  the  spirit. 
And  it  is  a  sign  of  'the  baptism  of  the  spirit,  as  cir- 
cumcision cannot  be.  Hence,  under  that  dispensation 
there  was  divinely  appointed  sprinkling  and  pouring 
in  connection  with  it ;  while  under  this  dispensation 
baptism  answers  all  the  purposes. 

It  also  does  away  with  the  distinction  which  neces- 
sarily existed  between  male  and  female  while  circum- 
cision was  in  use.  The  doing  away  of  this  distinction, 
by  substituting  baptism  for  circumcision,  is  very 
forcibly  and  beautifully  expressed  by  the  apostle 
Paul  in  the  following  words;.  "For  as  many  of  you 
as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ. 
There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond 
nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female  :  for  ye  are 
all  one  in  Christ  Jesus."  (Gal.  iii.  1,  8.)  To  prove 
that  baptism  does  not  take  the  place  of  circumcision, 
certain  ignorant  persons,  and  among  them  sometimes 
females,  have  urged  the  fact  that  while  circumcision 
was  not,  baptism  is,  administered  to  females.  To 
such  females  we  recommend  Paul's  very  sensible  and 
appropriate  advice  :  "Let  them  ask  their  husbands  at 
home."  Aud  if  their  husbands  are  as  ignorant  as 
themselves,  which  is  very  likely,  we  can  only  sympa- 
thize with  them.  Meantime  we  claim  that  the  words 
quoted  above  prove  just  the  reverse  of  what  the 
objector  designs  to  prove  by  the  fact  stated.  That 
baptism  takes  the  place   of  circumcision  is  evident 


SUBSTITUTED    FOR    CIRCUMCISION.  89 

from  the  following  Scripture  also,  Speaking  of  our 
completeness  in  Christ,  the  apostle  says  to  the  Colos- 
sians :  "  In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the 
circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of 
Christ,  buried  with  Him  in  baptism."  &c.  (Col.  ii. 
11,  12.)  Having  quoted  this  text,  Mr.  Watson  ob- 
serves, having  specified  other  particulars  in  which 
baptism  takes  the  place  of  circumcision:  "  Here  bap- 
tism is  made  the  initiatory  rite  of  the  new  dispensa- 
tion, that  by  which  the  Colos:-ians  were  joined  to 
Christ  in  whom  they  are  said  to  be  '  complete /'  and 
so  certain  is  it  that  baptism  has  the  same  office  and 
import  now  as  circumcision  formerly, — with  this  dif- 
ference only,  that  the  object  of  faith  was  then  future, 
and  now  it  is  Christ  as  come — that  the  Apostle  ex- 
pressly calls  baptism  l  the  circumcision  of  Christ  f 
the  circumcision  instituted  by  Him,  which  phrase  he 
puts  out  of  the  reach  of  frivolous  criticism,  by  adding 
exegetically,  'buried  wiih  Him  in  baptism?  For 
unless  the  Apostle  here  calls  baptism  '  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ,'  he  asserts  that  we  'put  off  the  body 
of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,'  that  is,  become  new  creatures 
by  virtue  of  our  Lord's  own  personal  circumcision ; 
but  if  this  be  absurd,  then  the  only  reason  for  which 
he  can  call  baptism  'the  circumcision  of  Christ,'  or 
Christian  circumcision,  is,  that  it  has  taken  the  place 
of  the  Abrahamic  circumcision,  and  fulfills  the  same 
office  of  introducing  believing  men  into  God's  cove- 
nant, and  entitling  them  to  the  enjoyment  of  spiritual 
blessings."  The  phrase,  circumcision  of  Christ,  so 
evidently  means    Christian  baptism,  that  this  close 


90  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

and  accurate  reasoner  does  not  hesitate  to  say  that 
Paul  himself  has  "put  it  out  of  the  reach  of  frivolous 
criticism."  Doddridge,  too,  in  his  notes  on  the  place, 
takes  the  same  view.  Having  quoted  the  words 
"  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  he  adds, 
"renouncing  all  the  deeds  of  it.  Your  engagements 
to  this  you  have  expressed  by  that  ordinance  which 
I  may  call  the  circumcision  of  Christ;  it  being  that 
by  which  he  hath  appointed  that  ^ye  should  be  initi- 
ated into  His  Church  as  the  members  of  it."  Thus 
he  represents  Paul  as  saying  of  baptism,  "  that  ordi- 
nance which  I  may  call  the  circumcision  of  Christ." 
The  propriety  of  all  this  will  appear  still  more  clear 
when  it  is  remembered  that  baptism  and  circumcision 
symbolize  the  same  thing,  namely,  the  removal  of 
moral  uncleanness;  though  they  do  it  in  different 
ways,  yet  both  are  very  significant  of  this  thing. 
Hence  Philo,  as  quoted  by  Whitby,  says  that  "cir- 
cumcision imports  the  cutting  off  our  sinful  pleasures 
and  passions,  and  our  impious  opinions."  What  cir- 
cumcision represents  by  cutting  off,  baptism  still  more 
forcibly  represents  by  the  idea  of  washing  away. 
And  Peter,  referring  both  to  circumcision  and  bap- 
tism, speaks  of  them  as  symbolizing  this  moral 
cleansing  by  "  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the 
flesh."  Moral  impurity  is  often  called  filth,  both  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  See,  for  instance, 
Isaiah  iv.  4,  Ezek.  xxxii.  25,  and  Rev.  xxii.  11. 

After  showing?  at  great  length,  and  by  most,  con- 
clusive evidence,  that  Christian  baptism  takes  the 
place  of  circumcision,  Mr.  Watson  adds:  "This 
argument   is  sufficiently  extended   to  show  that   the 


SUBSTITUTED    FOR    CIRCUMCISION.  91 

Antipedobaptist  writers  have  in  vain  endeavored  to 
prove  that  baptism  has  not  been  appointed  in  the  room 
of  circumcision  ;  a  point  on  which,  hi  deed,  they  were 
bound  to  employ  all  their  strength ;  for  the  substitu- 
tion of  baptism  for  circumcision  being  established, 
one  of  their  main  objections  to  infant  baptism,  as  we 
will  just  now  show,  is  rendered  wholly  nugatory." 
Having  adduced  the  further  evidence  here  promised, 
he  sums  up  thus  :  "  If,  then,  we  bring  all  these  consid- 
erations under  one  view,  we  shall  find  it  sufficiently 
established  that  baptism  is  the  sign  and  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  under  its  j:>erfected  dispensation ; 
— that  it  is  the  grand  initiatory  act  by  which  we  enter 
into  this  covenant  in  order  to  claim  all  its  spiritual 
blessings,  and  to  take  ivpon  ourselves  all  its  obliga- 
tions ; — that  it  was  appointed  by  Jesus  Christ  in  a 
manner  which  plainly  put  it  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision ; — that  it  is  now  the  means  by  which  men 
become  Abraham's  spiritual  children,  and  heirs  with 
him  of  the  promise,  which  was  the  office  of  circum- 
cision until  the  seed,  the  Messiah,  should  come  ; — 
and  that  baptism  is  therefore  expressly  called  by  St. 
Paul,  '  the  circumcision  of  Christ,'  or  Christian  cir- 
cumcision, in  a  sense  which  can  only  import  that  bap- 
tism has  now  taken  the  place  of  the  Abrahamic  rite." 
After  refuting  another  objection  of  Antipedobaptist 
writers,  stated  by  Mr.  Booth,  Mr.  Watson  concludes 
thus :  "We  may  here  add  that  an  early  father,  Justin 
Martyr,  takes  the  same  view  of  the  substitution  of 
circumcision  by  Christian  baptism:  'We  Gentiles,' 
Justin  observes,  'have  not  received  that  circumcision 
according  to  the  flesh,  but  that  which  is  spiritual — 


92  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

and.  moreover,  for  indeed  we  were  sinners,  we  have 
received  this  in  baptism,  through  God's  mercy,  and 
it  is  enjoined  on  all  to  receive  it  in  like  manner.'" 
According  lo  this  father,  circumcision  is  received  in 
baptism,  and  it  is  enjoined  upon  all!  But  this  same 
ancient  father  is  still  more  distinct  in  the  following  quo- 
tation, which  is  handed  down  to  us  as  containing  his 
words  verbatim  :  "  We  Gentile  Christians  are  circum- 
cised by  baptism  with  Christ's  circumcision;"  and  in 
support  of  this  view  he  quotes  Col.  ii.  11,  12.  He  also 
says,  "we  were  discipled  in  our  childhood."  Now 
when  it  is  remembered  that  this  father  was  born  about 
A.  D.  133,  and  that  he  is  here  defending  the  practice 
of  the  whole  Christian  Church  in  opposition  to  the 
Jews,  who  still  contended  for  circumcision,  it  must 
be  admitted,  we  think,  that  this  testimony  is  over- 
whelmingly conclusive.  Not  because  his  testimony 
or  practice,  or  that  of  any  other  man,  or  number  of 
men,  is  a  rule  for  us  when  unsupported  by  Scripture, 
but  because  it  is  quite  sufficient  to  show  what  were 
the  facts  with  regard  to  the  views  and  the  practice 
of  the  early  Christian  Church ;  so  early  that  some 
still  living  were  familiar  with  some  of  the  apostles,  at 
least  with  the  Apostle  John  and  his  teachings ;  and 
their  views,  according  to  the  testimony  of  this  father, 
were  that  baptism  took  the  place  of  circumcision  ; 
and,  accordingly,  that  they  "discipled,"  that  is,  bap- 
tized in  "  childhood."  Turning  to  Taylor's  "  Facts 
and  Evidences,"  I  find  that  writer  furnishes  the  fol- 
lowing quotation  from  this  same  Justin  Martyr: 
"Why,  if  circumcision  be  a  good  thing,  do  we  not 
use  it   as   well  as   the   Jews    did  ?     The  answer  is, 


SUBSTITUTED    FOR    CIKC UMCISION.  93 

because  we  Gentile  Christians  are  circumcised  by 
baptism  with  Christ's  circumcision."  Now  this  shows 
most  conclusively  what  were  the  views  and  practice 
of  the  primitive  Church  with  regard  to  baptism. 
Their  views  were  that  Christ  gave  baptism  in  the 
place  of  circumcision,  and  that  they  practiced  accord- 
ingly; for  if  these  were  not  the  views  and  practice  of 
the  primitive  Church  this  prominent  minister  could 
not  write  and  publish  what  every  Christian  then  liv- 
ing must  have  known  to  be  a  glaring  falsehood.  It 
would  not  be  possible,  for  instance,  for  a  prominent 
minister  in  the  Anabaptist  church  of  the  present  day 
to  publish  a  treatise  in  defense  of  baptism  by  sprink- 
ling, and  especially  in  defense  of  the  baptism  of 
infants,  asserting  that  these  were  the  views  and  prac- 
tice of  the  entire  church  of  which  he  was  a  minister, 
and  that  they  did  so  upon  the  authority  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  and  that  they  had  always  believed  and 
practiced  thus ;  I  say  no  such  minister  could  do  so 
while  in  a  sane  state ;  and  if  he  should,  of  course  the 
whole  Anabaptist  church  would  contradict  and  reject 
his  statement.  Let  it  be  acknowledged,  then,  as  we 
think  every  intelligent  and  honest  man  must  acknowl- 
edge that  Justin  Martyr  and  other  fathers  could  not 
write  thus  if  these  were  not  the  views  and  practice  of 
the  primitive  Church  ;  and  if  these  Avere  evidently  the 
views  and  practice  of  the  primitive  Church,  with  what 
face  can  Anabaptist  ministers  tell  the  masses  of  the 
people,  who  know  no  better,  that  the  baptism  of 
infants  is  a  modern,  a  popish  invention?  The  best 
excuse  we  can  possibly  make  for  such  ministers  is 
that  they  themselves  are  ignorant;  "  the  blind  lead  the 


94:  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

blind."  Mr.  Taylor  also  gives  us  the  following  quo- 
tation from  the  writings  of  John  Chrysostom  :  "  There 
was  pain  and  trouble  in  the  practice  of  that  Jewish 
circumcision ;  but  our  circumcision,  I  mean  the  grace 
of  baptism,  gives  cure  without  pain;  and  this  for 
infants  as  well  as  men."  Here,  as  late  as  the  latter 
end  of  the  4th  century,  this  father  still  speaks  of  the 
"Jewish  circumcision"  and  "our  circumcision,"  and 
by  "our  circumcision"  lie  tells  us  he  means  baptism, 
and,  observe,  he  is  not  speaking  of  his  views  and 
practice,  but  of  those  of  the  entire  Christian  Church 
at  that  time,  as  Justin  Martyr  had  done  more  than 
two  hundred  years  before. 

The  incident  that  is  recorded  as  having  occurred 
at  the  council  of  Carthage  is  well  known.  The  sub- 
stance of  it  is  this:  One  Fedus,  not  being  present  at 
the  Council,  wrote  to  the  presiding  bishop,  Cyprian, 
to  know  whether  a  child  should  be  baptized  before  it 
was  eight  days  old ;  to  this  inquiry  Cyprian  and  the 
whole  Council,  consisting  of  sixty-six  bishops,  replied 
that  it  was  not  necessary  to  delay  baptism  till  the 
eighth  day.  Now  I  will  simply  ask,  could  an  Anti- 
pedobaptist  minister  write  thus  to  a  council  of  sixty- 
six  of  his  brethren?  and  could  such  a  council  reply  as 
did  that  at  Carthage  ?  To  these  questions  there  is  of 
course  but  one  answer,  and  that  is  JYb  /  such  a  com- 
munication could  not  be  sent  to  such  a  body  and 
receive  such  an  answer ;  and,  for  the  same  reason,  it 
was  not  possible  that  such  a  communication  could 
have  been  sent  to  the  Council  at  Carthage  and  receive 
the  reply  here  recorded,  if,  as  we  are  told,  by  the 
Antipedobaptists,  the  whole  Christian   Church  then 


SUBSTITUTED  FOR  CIRCUMCISION.  05 

believed  an  1  practiced  as  they  do  now  ;  nor  could 
Fedus  have  thus  written,  nor  was  it  possible  for  the 
Council  to  reply  as  it  did,  had  not  the  baptism  of 
children  been  the  belief  and  practice  of  the  primitive 
Church  !  What,  then,  can  we  think  of  those  who 
assert,  as  was  publicly  asserted  here  of  late,  that  the 
practice  of  the  present  Anabaptist  church  was  the 
only  practice  "  for  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years  ?" 
We  certainly  have  but  too  much  reason  to  conclude 
that  such  men  have  learned,  and  do  understand  the 
fact,  that  bold  assertions  will  answer  their  purpose 
better  than  argument  with  a  certain  class  ! 

The  fact  is,  though  at  a  very  early  period,  there 
were  many  departures  from  apostolic  teaching  and 
practice,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  the 
most  daring  of  the  inventors  of  error  to  deny  children 
the  right  of  baptism.  Hence,  when  Pelagius  was 
charged  with  this,  he  seems  to  have  been  perfectly 
shocked,  even  as  much  as  if  he  had  been  charged 
with  murder.  Hence  he  complains  thus :  "  Men 
slander  me  as  if  I  denied  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism 
to  infants,"  and  having  denied  the  slander  with  hor- 
ror, he  says  he  never  heard  even  of  the  most  impious 
heretic  that  was  guilty  of  doing  so  !  See  Hibbard  on 
Infant  Baptism,  p.  217.  The  truth  is,  the  exclusion 
of  infants  from  Christian  baptism,  is  amongst  the 
most  modern  of  human  inventions,  as  a  religious 
dogma.  Hence  Baxter  says  :  "  I  am  fully  satisfied 
that  you  cannot  show  me  any  society,  I  think  not  one 
man,  that  ever  objected  to  infant  baptism  till  about 
two  hundred  years  ago.  I  find  Christ  did  once  place 
little  children  iu  the  Church,  and  no  man  breathing 


96  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

can  show  me  one  word  of  Scripture  where  ever  Christ, 
did  put  them  out  again."  "About  two  hundred  years 
ago."  He  refers  to  the  origin  of  the  Anabaptist  views 
by  John  Mathias  and  King  John  of  Leyden,  and 
other  German  fanatics  in  the  days  of  Luther.  Before 
this  time  we  do  not  remember  to  have  read  of  a  sin- 
gle individual  who  is  even  charged  with  excluding 
infants  from  baptism,  unless  it  be  Pierre  de  Bruis,  in 
the  12th  century,  and  the  record  is  very  unreliable, 
for  the  charge  is  brought  against  him  by  the  Abbot 
Clngny,  his  deadly  enemy.  The  charge  which  the 
Abbot  brings  against  him  is  this.  The  Abbot  says  : 
"He,"  Pierre  de  Brnis,  "denies  that  children,  before 
they  arrive  at  years  of  intelligence,  can  be  saved  by 
baptism,  or  that  the  faith  of  another  person  can  be 
useful  to  them,  since,  according  to  those  of  his  opin- 
ion, it  is  not  the  faith  of  another  which  saves,  but  the 
faith  of  the  individual  with  baptism,  according  to  our 
Lord's  words — 'He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved  ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned !' " 
From  the  quotation  itself  I  am  strongly  inclined  to 
believe  that  the  charge  is  not  truthful ;  for  the  word- 
ing of  the  charge  conveys  to  me  the  idea  that  the 
opposition  of  Bruis  was  not  to  the  baptism  of  chil- 
dren, but  to  the  Popish  dogma  that  children  are  saved 
by  baptism  and  cannot  be  saved  without  it ;  for  the 
Abbot  charges  him  with  denying  that  children  "  can 
be  saved  by  baptism,"  and  he  no  doubt  did  deny  that 
children  were  saved  by  baptism  in  the  Popish  sense; 
but  could  we  hear  him  speak  for  himself  we  would, 
no  doubt,  hear  him  deny  the  other  part  of  the  charge 
as  Pelagius  did,  for  he  was  a  good  man,  and  was 


SUBSTITUTED    FOR    CIRCUMCISION.  97 

burned  for  his  adherence  to  the  truth,  in  112G.  It  is 
probably  to  this  man  that  Baxter  refers  when  he 
says  :  "  I  think  not  one  man."  The  case  of  Pierre 
de  Bruis,  as  here  referred  to,  may  be  found  in  the 
History  of  the  Vaudois,  by  Antoine  Monastier. 

In  addition  to  the  quotations  already  given  from  the 
fathers,  we  will  add  the  following,  which  we  find  in 
our  memoranda,  but  cannot  say  what  we  quoted  from ; 
they  are,  however,  faithful  quotations,  which  we  made 
in  the  course  of  our  reading.  Irenseus  speaks  of  the 
baptism  of  "  infants,  little  ones  and  children."  He 
flourished  about  A.  D.,  178,  and  was  acquainted  with 
Polycarp,  who  was  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John. 
Origen  refers  to  infant  baptism  in  proof  of  original 
sin,  and  says  the  Church  baptized  infants  "because 
the  apostles  commanded  it."  He  flourished  in  the 
third  century.  Ambrose,  too,  refers  to  the  baptism 
of  infants  in  proof  of  original  sin,  and  says  "  it  was 
practiced  in  the  Apostles'  times."  He  wrote  in  the 
fourth  century.  Augustine,  too,  makes  a  similar 
statement  for  the  same  purpose,  and  says  of  infant 
baptism  that  "it  was  practiced  in  the  apostles' times." 
He  wrote  in  the  fifth  century.  In  defense  of  the  same 
doctrine,  Chrysostom  says  :  "  For  this  reason  we  bap- 
tize infants  also."  He  wrote  in  the  fourth  century. 
Tertullian,  we  are  told,  advised  the  delay  of  infant 
baptism,  but  this  Avhim  resulted  from  another  error 
which  he  had  embraced,  viz.:  that  they  were  saved 
by  baptism,  and  that,  consequently,  if  any  one  died 
after  baptism,  before  committing  sin,  such  an  one  was 
saved;  but,  errorist  as  he  was,  he  was  no  Antipedo- 
baptist.     To  these  testimonies  we  may  add  the  fact 


98  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

that  the  Greek  Church  does,  and  always  did,  baptize 
infants.  Speaking  of  Tertullian,  Mr.  Watson  says, 
vol.  ii.  p.  645  :  "  So  little,  indeed,  were  Tertullian's 
absurdities  regarded,  that  he  appears  to  have  been 
quite  forgotten  by  this-  time,  for  Augustine  says  he 
never  heard  of  any  Christian,  Catholic  or  Sectary, 
who  taught  any  other  doctrine  than  that  infants  are 
to  be  baptized." — De  Pece.  Mor.  Cap.  6 


CHAPTER  XII. 

It  is  shown  that  Infant  Baptism  has  been  practiced  from  Apos- 
tolic times — Xot  one  clear  case  of  Opposition  to  Infant  Baptism 
till  the  Sixteenth  Century — Appealing  to  and  Keasoning  with 
the  Antipedobaptists — Astounding  Facts  Stated — They  cannot 
tell  us  when  the  practice  of  Baptizing  Infants  commenced — 
We  can  tell  them  When  and  by  Whom  Opposition  thereto  com- 
menced— Infant  Baptism  the  Uncontradicted  Practice  of  the 
Church  from  Apostolic  till  Modern  times. 

Now,  in  view  of  this  overwhelming  array  of  testi- 
mony, and  we  could  add  much  more,  we  will  indulge 
in  a  few  brief  reflections,  to  which  we  invite  the 
serious  attention  of  all,  whether  Pedobaptist  or  Anti- 
pedobaptist.  And,  first,  observe,  we  do  not  produce 
the  teaching  and  example  of  either  the  ancients  or 
the  moderns  to  prove  that  children  should  be  baptized ; 
though  teaching  and  practice  so  uniform  are  not  to 
be  disregarded  even  as  proof,  nevertheless,  for  our 
authority  and  proof  we  rely  upon  the  word  of  God. 
But  we  produce  all  this  array  of  testimony  and  prac- 
tice to  prove  that  infant  baptism  is  no  i?i?iovation, 
that  it  has  been  practiced  from  apostolic  times  to  the 
present  time,  as  circumcision  was  in  all  the  previous 
ages  of  the  Church!  As  late  as  the  5th  century, 
Augustine  and  Pelagius,  who  Avere  opposed  in  other 
things,  give  their   testimony  to  this  fact,  that  they 


100  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

never  heard  of  one,  no,  not  the  most  impious  heretic, 
who  opposed  infant  baptism,  or  taught  any  other  doc- 
trine ;  and  Baxter  asserts  that  he  never  heard  of  a 
society,  he  thinks  not  a  single  individual,  who  opposed 
infant  baptism  till  about  two  hundred  years  before  his 
time,  that  is,  till  the  sixteenth  century!  What  an 
astounding  fact !  For  a  period  of  some  fifteen  hun- 
dred years,  dating  from  apostolic  times,  not  a  single 
clear  case  of  opposition  to  infant  baptism  in  all 
Christendom;  though  during  that  period  the  devil 
and  errorists  seem  to  have  introduced  every  imagina- 
ble error  save  that  of  the  Antipedobaptists ;  for  some 
reason  they  did  not  dare  to  introduce  this  error  till 
the  sixteenth  century  from  the  Christian  era  ;  surely 
this  is  one  of  the  most  wonderful  facts  of  history  ! 
We  may  safely  say,  I  think,  that  during  this  period 
every  other  doctrine  of  the  Christian  system  was 
assailed,  in  one  way  or  other,  but  it  remained  for  the 
crazy,  lawless,  German  fanatics  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury to  attack  the  doctrine,  the  Christian  doctrine,  of 
infant  baptism,  and  found  an  Autipedobaptist  Church  ! 
To  the  Antipedobaptists  we  say:  "  Come,  now,  and 
let  us  reason  together;"  do  not  get  vexed  with  our 
statement  of  facts,  or  with  our  reflections  upon  these 
facts  ;  we  are  honest,  we  are  sincere,  we  believe  what 
we  say,  we  are  searching  after  the  truth  as  well  as 
the  facts  in  the  case,  and  if  we  know  ourselves  we 
are  prepared  to  receive  the  truth  wherever  we  find  it. 
If,  as  you  say,  infant  baptism  is  an  innovation,  a  nov- 
elty, a  human  invention;  will  you  please  tell  us  when 
and  where  this  novelty,  this  human  invention,  was 
introduced,  and  by  whom?    Or,  if  you  cannot  tell  us 


PRACTICED    FROM    APOSTOLIC    TIMES.  101 

the  time  when,  and  the  persons  by  whom,  it  was 
introduced,  will  you  be  good  enough  to  point  us  to 
a  period  since  the  Christian  era,  when  it  was  not 
practiced?  We  cannot  find  such  a  period,  Baxter 
could  not  find  such  a  period,  nor  could  he  point  to 
a  single  society  that  ever  opposed  the  doctrine  till 
the  period  specified ;  nor  could  any  of  the  Christian 
Fathers  point  to  such  a  party  in  their  time,  or  "  in  the 
old  time  before  them,"  nor  could  they  point  us  to  a 
period  since  the  Christian  era  when  infant  baptism 
was  not  practiced.  Many  others,  too,  very  many,  of 
the  learned  and  wise  have  searched  with  great  care 
and  perseverance,  but  they  have  all  failed,  utterly 
failed,  to  discover  a  period  since  the  Christian  era 
when  infant  baptism  was  not  practiced  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  Now,  if  the  Antipedobaptists  have 
discovered  what  all  others  have  failed  to  discover,  will 
they  be  good  enough  to  favor  us  with  the  discovery  ? 
Will  they  tell  us  at  what  period  since  the  apostolic 
times  infant  baptism  was  introduced  into  the  Chris- 
tian Church  ?  As  honest  men  they  are  bound  to  do 
this,  or  never  again  call  it  a  novelty,  an  innovation. 
If  it  is  an  innovation,  how  is  it  that  unlike  all  other 
innovations,  its  introduction  called  forth  no  opposition 
or  discussion?  It  is  a  fact  that  children  were  received 
into  the  Church  by  the  divinely  appointed  initiatory 
rite  from  the  days  of  Abraham  till  the  days  of  the 
apostles.  Now,  is  it  possible  that  a  divine  appointment 
of  so  long  standing,  of  such  vital  importance,  and  so 
wide  in  its  application  as  to  embrace  all  the  children 
of  all  the  worshipers  of  the  true  God,  could  be  abro- 
gated and  no  one  know  when  the  abrogation  took 
place  ?     Is  it  possible  that  all  the  children  of  all  the 


102  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

worshipers  of  the  true  God  could  at  once  be  excluded 
from  the  Church  of  God  without  opposition  or  com- 
plaint from  either  Jew  or  Gentile  ?  Or,  if  there  was 
complaint  or  opposition,  is  it  possible  that  all  the 
facts  in  the  case  could  have  been  excluded  from  his- 
tory, so  completely  excluded  that  we  do  not  find  in 
any  of  the  Church  Councils  the  record  of  one  jot  or 
tittle  of  complaint,  opposition  or  even  discussion  with 
regard  to  the  exclusion  of  children  from  their  long 
and  divinely-appointed  place  in  the  Church  of  God? 
Is  it  possible  that  believing  parents  could  be  all  at 
once  so  divested  of  all  natural  and  religious  feeling 
that  they  could  submit  to  have  their  children  excluded 
from  the  Covenant  and  Church  of  God  without  offer- 
ing any  resistance,  objection  or  even  complaint?  Is" 
it  possible  that  the  Jews,  whose  children  under  the 
former  dispensation  had  been  received  into  the 
Church,  received  into  covenant  relation  to  God,  and 
had  received  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant,  is  it 
possible,  I  say,  that  these  Jews  could  all  at  once  sub- 
mit to  the  annulment,  the  reversion,  of  all  this  with- 
out opposition  or  complaint,  especially  as  no  one  pro- 
duced, or  pretended  to  produce,  a  jot  or  tittle  of 
divine  authority  for  this  serious  change  in  the  divine 
constitution  ?  Is  it  possible  that  the  unbelieving 
Jews,  the  deadly  enemies  of  the  new  dispensation, 
who  sought  every  occasion  to  object  to  and  depreciate 
the  Christian  system,  could  fail  to  notice  a  change 
which  afforded  such  just  ground  for  objection  and 
opposition?  Or  if  they  did  object  and  oppose,  is  it 
possible  that  history  could  be  entirely  silent  with 
regard  to  these  facts  ?   Is  it  possible  that  neither  Jew 


PRACTICED   FROM   APOSTOLIC    TIMES.  103 

nor  Gentile,  inspired  or  uninspired,  believing  or  unbe- 
lieving, should  ever  record  one  jot  or  tittle  with 
regard  to  the  change,  or  the  opposition  thereto,  if 
such  change  and  opposition  bad  taken  place  ?  Now, 
in  answer  to  all  these  questions  we  do  not  hesitate  to 
reply,  No ;  such  a  change  could  not  take  place  with- 
out opposition,  complaint  or  discussion;  much  less 
could  it  take  place  without  any  one  knowing  when, 
how  or  by  whom  it  was  made.  We  therefore  conclude 
that  the  change  did  not  take  place;  toe  must  so  con- 
clude, for  the  contrary  conclusion  would  be  in  favor 
of  what  we  claim  to  be  impossible ! 

The  Antipedobaptists  have  not  to  ask  us  when,  how 
and  by  whom  their  dogma  was  introduced ;  we  tell 
them  without  being  asked.  We  tell  them  the  time 
when,  the  place  where,  and  the  parties  by  whom  their 
antiscriptural  dogma  was  introduced.  We  tell  them 
the  opposition  that  its  introduction  met  with,  and  who 
they  were  who  made  the  opposition  to  it;  even 
Luther,  Melancthon,  Calvin,  and,  in  short,  the  entire 
Christian  world,  with  the  exception  of  the  few  lawless 
fanatics  who  introduced  it,  and  who  were  the  cause 
of  much  disgrace  and  injury  to  the  great  reformation. 
And  we  refer  them  to  the  pages  of  'history,  where 
they  may  find  the  facts  recorded !  And  we  challenge 
them  to  show  us,  to  tell  us  when,  where  and  by  whom 
their  antiscriptural  novelty  was  introduced  before 
this  time ;  and  we  claim  that  their  inability  to  do  so 
makes  our  argument  as  complete  as  argument  can  be! 
Wall  says  that  Peter  Bruis,  about  1130,  was  the  first 
Antipedobaptist  teacher  who  had  a  regular  congrega- 
tion.    (Hist.,  part  2,  c.  7.)     Even  if  this  were  admit- 


104  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

ted,  it  would  not  help  the  matter,  it  only  shows  that 
Antipedobaptism  is  an  innovation  of  comparatively 
modern  introduction.  But  we  have  already  shown 
that  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  man  ever  opposed 
infant  baptism  as  being  unscriptural.  Bishop  Tornlin 
says  that  the  Anabaptists  of  Germany  took  their  rise 
in  the  beginning  of  the  16th  century;  but  it  does  not 
appear  that  there  was  any  congregation  of  Anabap- 
tists in  England  till  the  year  1640.  This  is  without 
doubt  the  origin  of  the  present  Antipedobaptist 
Church,  as  we  have  already  shown.  If  they  had  an 
existence  before  then,  let  them  show  us  when  and 
where  ! 

Closing  his  arguments  in  favor  of  infant  baptism, 
Mr.  Watson  says,  "that  a  practice  which  can  be 
traced  up  to  the  very  first  periods  of  the  Church,  and  has 
been  till  within  very  modern  times,  its  uncontradicted 
practice,  should  have  a  lower  authority  than  apostolic 
usage  and  appointment,  may  be  pronounced  impossi- 
ble. It  is  not  like  one  of  those  trifling  though  some- 
what superstitious  additions,  which  even  in  early 
times  began  to  be  made  to  the  sacraments ;  on  the 
contrary,  it  involves  a  principle  so  important  as  to 
alter  the  very  nature  of  the  sacrament  itself."  Inst., 
vol.  ii.  p.  646.  Mark  these  two  statements  in  this 
quotation  ;  till  within  very  modern  times  infant  bap- 
tism was  the  uncontradicted  practice  of  the  Church. 
Second,  the  Antipedobaptist  dogma  involves  a  prin- 
ciple so  important  as  to  alter  the  very  nature  of  the 
sacrament  itself!  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  then,  that 
this  Antipedobaptist  dogma  is  not  only  a  novelty,  but 
a  very  serious  error,  as  we  shall  show  more  fully 
pretty  soon. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

The  objection  that  Infant  Baptism  is  incompatible  with  Man's  Nat- 
ural Rights  is  shown  to  be  ridiculous. — It  contains  the  very  germ 
of  Infidelity  and  even  Atheism — Objection  that  Circumcision 
was  a  Civil  Contract  is  Refuted — Many  absurdities  exposed. 

Finally,  lest  all  the  other  objections  to  infant  bap- 
tism should  prove  insufficient,  Antipedobaptists  tell 
us  that  it  is  incompatible  with  man's  natural  rights  ; 
that  baptism  should  be  delayed  till  the  child  is  capa- 
ble of  choosing  for  itself !  This  objection  is  not  only 
ridiculous,  but  it  contains  the  very  germ  of  infidelity. 
The  late  Robert  Owen,  the  founder  of  that  form  of 
infidelity  called  Socialism,  took  the  same  ground,  and 
insisted  that  all  religious  instruction  should  be  delayed 
till  the  child  is  at  least  thirteen  years  old  !  Truly,  the 
devil  spoke  like  himself  when  he  made  this  proposal. 
I  say  this  objection  contains  the  very  germ  of  infidel- 
ity, for  it  is  in  direct  opposition  to  well-known  Bible 
teaching  /  seeing  that  book  informs  us  that  God  com- 
manded the  child  to  be  consecrated  to  himself,  and 
the  seal  of  the  covenant  applied  as  early  as  eight  days 
after  the  child  is  born.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  issue 
is  joined,  not  with  us,  but  with  Bible  teaching,  known, 
unmistakable  Bible  teaching :  And,  as  we  before 
showed,  it  will  not  mend  the  matter  to  say  that  bap- 


106  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

tism  does  not  take  the  place  of  circumcision,  for  the 
facts  are  not  altered  at  all ;  if  baptism  is  incompati- 
ble with  man's  natural  rights,  so  was  circumcision, 
seeing  it  laid  the  child  under  as  much  obligation  as 
does  baptism.  Nor  Avill  it  do  for  the  Anabaptists  to 
say,  as  they  have  said,  that  circumcision  was  a  civil 
contract,  and  that  the  obligations  and  blessings 
involved  were  of  a  temporal  character ;  for  surely  it 
is  not  a  greater  interference  with  the  child's  natural 
rights  to  lay  it  under  obligations  to  serve  Almighty 
God  than  it  is  to  lay  it  under  obligations  of  a  civil  or 
national  character.  But  the  fact  is,  this  objection  of 
the  Antipedobaptists  only  serves  to  show  the  desper- 
ateness  of  their  case;  for  the  moral  character  of  the 
Abrabamic  covenant,  of  which  circumcision  was  the 
sea!,  is  unmistakably  taught  both  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  as  the  following  texts  do  most  clearly 
show.  Jer.  iv.  4 :  "  Circumcise  yourselves  to  the 
Lord,  and  take  away  the  foreskins  of  your  heart, 
ye  men  of  Judah  and  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem." 
Deut.  xxx.  6 :  "And  the  Lord  thy  God  will 
circumcise  thine  heart  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed, 
to  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine  heart, 
and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  may  est  live." 
Deut.  x.  15,  16:  "  Only  the  Lord  had  a  delight  in 
thy  fathers  to  love  them,  and  he  chose  their  seed  after 
them,  even  you  above  all  people,  as  it  is  this  day. 
Circumcise  therefore,  the  foreskin  of  your  heart,  and 
be  no  more  stiffnecked."  Romans  ii.  28:  "For  he 
is  not  a  Jew  which  is  one  outwardly  in  the  flesh ;  but 
he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly  :  and  circumcision 
is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter, 


ABSURDITIES    EXPOSED.  107 

whose  praise  is  not  of  men  but  of  God."  St.  Paul 
says :  "Abraham  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had, 
yet  being  uncircnmcised."  A  careful  study  of  these 
and  similar  texts,  wThich  abound  in  the  Old  and  New' 
Testaments,  will  satisfy  any  one  that  circumcision 
was  the  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  a  seal  of 
righteousness  or  justification,  previously  had,  and 
that  it  was  also  a  sign  of  moral  purity  or  sanctifica- 
tion;  this  was  signified  by  the  removal,  or  "putting 
away"  of  "  the  filth  of  the  flesh;"  it  was  also  a  sign 
or  badge  of  the  peculiar  relation  which  the  circum- 
cised party  sustained  to  God.  Now,  with  such  teach- 
ings as  these  before  us,  I  think  it  is  not  saying  too 
much  to  say  that  it  must  be  a  bad  cause  which  forces 
its  advocates  to  say  that  circumcision  was  merely  a 
civil  transaction,  and  that  it  only  involved  temporal 
blessings  and  obligations.  And  its  badness  becomes 
still  more  apparent  when  it  forces  its  advocates  to 
say  that  such  a  transaction  is  incompatible  with  man's 
natural  rights  !  for  that  is  a  declared  opposition  to 
the  teachings  of  God's  word,  and  is,  therefore,  infidel 
in  its  principle,  as  we  before  said. 

This  objection  not  only  contains  the  germ  of  infi- 
delity, but  it  contains  the  germ  of  atheism;  for  it 
assumes  it  to  be  the  natural  right  of  the  child  to  choose 
whether  he  shall  or  shall  not  be  consecrated  tn  God 
Almighty ;  whether  he  shall  or  shall  not  acknowledge 
his  obligations  to  and  serve  God  Almighty.  This 
objection  assumes  it  to  be  an  open  question  whether 
the  God  who  created  and  redeemed  has  a  right  to  put 
forth  such  claims,  and  that  all  these  questions  are  to 


108  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISE. 

be  left  undecided  till  the  child  is  of  age  to  choose  and 
decide  for  itself;  that  its  judgment  and  authority  in 
the  case  are  superior  to  those  of  the  Almighty;  and 
that  the  Almighty  has  no  right  or  authority  to  decide 
in  the  case  till  he  first  consults  the  child  after  it  is 
capable  of  judging  in  the  case,  and  obtains  its  con- 
sent !  It  assumes,  too,  that  revelation  and  man's 
natural  rights  are  at  variance,  that  the  former  is  sub- 
versive of  the  latter,  and,  therefore,  unjust,  and 
should  not  be  submitted  to  !  It  assumes  —  what  does 
it  assume?  In  a  word,  everything  that  is  wrong  and 
nothing  that  is  right.  And  yet  we  have  listened  to, 
and  even  countenanced  this  antipedo,  this  infidel,  this 
atheistical  objection,  till  both  parents  and  children  in 
our  very  churches  have  learned  to  utter  it  in  justifica- 
tion of  their  opposition,  their  daring  opposition  to  the 
plain  teachings  of  God's  word ! 

But  the  absurd,  as  well  as  the  infidel  and  atheisti- 
cal character  of  this  objection  deserves  specification. 
If  in  deference  to  the  natural  rights  of  children,  we 
may  not  consecrate  them  1o  God,  may  not  receive 
them  into  the  Church,  into  the  covenant  of  grace,  and 
apply  to  them  the  seal  of  that  covenant ;  may  not  lay 
them  under  obligation  to  serve  God  when  they  come 
to  the  years  of  understanding,  what  may  we  do  ?  On 
the  same  principle  I  do  not  see  why  we  should  not  leave 
them  to  choose  what  teacher  they  shall  have,  Avhat 
school  they  shall  go  to,  what  kind  of  instruction  they 
shall  have,  or  whether  they  shall  have  any  instruction 
at  all.  And  if  we  do,  I  am  strongly  inclined  to 
believe  that  they  mil  choose  the  latter;  and  if  they 
should,  I  do  not  see  what  right  we  have  to  oppose  their 


ABSURDITIES    EXPOSED.  109 

choice,  any  more  than  we  had  a  right  to  choose  for 
them  before  they  were  capable  of  making  a  choice ! 
Nor  do  I  see  what  right  we  have,  on  this  principle,  to 
c.oose  anything  for  the  child,  not  even  the  kind  of  dress 
it  shall  wear,  or  whether  it  shall  wear  any  dress  at  all ! 
And  the  probability  is  that  it  would  not,  if  left  to  its 
own  choice.  In  all  likelihood,  if  left  to  itself,  it 
would,  if  it  should  live,  be  alike  destitute  of  learning, 
clothing  and  religion !  Such,  doubtless,  would  be 
the  result  of  this  Antipedobaptist  objection  if  fully 
carried  out.  And  after  experimenting  thus  upon  it 
for  a  few  years,  we  would,  doubtless,  have  a  better 
knowledge  of  it  than  we  have  now;  but  the  knowl- 
edge would  be  very  dearly  bought !  As  it  is  never 
wise  to  experiment  upon  error,  let  us  rather  abide  by 
the  good  old  way,  and  experiment  upon  the  truth, 
even  the  truth  enjoined  upon  us  in  the  following 
Scriptures  :  "  Ye  stand  this  day  all  of  you  before  the 
Lord  your  God ;  your  captains  of  your  tribes,  your 
elders  and  your  officers,  with  all  the  men  of  Israel, 
your  little  ones,  your  wives  and  thy  stranger  that 
is  in  thy  camp,  from  the  hewer  of  thy  wood  unto  the 
drawer  of  thy  water  ;  that  thou  shouldst  enter  into 
covenant  with  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  into  the 
oath  which  the  Lord  thy  God  maketh  with  thee  this 
day,"  And  now  that  your  little  ones  as  well  as  your- 
selves sustain  a  covenant  relation  to  God,  see  that 
you  consult  not  their  choice,  but  the  word  of  your 
covenant  God,  and  teach  them  to  "  observe  and  do 
all  his  commandments."  "And  these  words  which  I 
command  thee  this  day  shall  be  in  thine  heart ;  and 
thou  shalt  teach   them  diligently  unto  thy  children, 


110  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

and  shall  talk  of  them  when  thou  sittest  in  thine 
house,  and  when  thou  walkest  by  the  way,  and  when 
thou  liest  down,  and  when  thou  risest  up."  Thus 
"train  up  a  child  in  the  way  he  should  go,  and  when 
he  is  old  he  will  not  depart  from  it."  Here  you  have 
God's  command  and  God's  promise ;  keep  them  as 
did  Abraham,  of  whom  the  Lord  hath  said  :  "I  know 
him,  that  he  will  command  his  children  and  his  house- 
hold after  him,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the 
Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment."  Rest  assured  of  it 
that  it  will  be  much  wiser  to  do  this  than  to  leave 
your  children  "to  choose  for  themselves."  If,  in 
reply  to  all  this,  the  Anabaptist  should  say:  "  But  we 
do  teach  our  children;"  then,  my  reply  is,  never  more 
tell  us  to  leave  our  children  "  to  choose  for  them- 
selves." Nor  are  you  at  liberty  to  choose  for  your- 
self, even  as  to  what  you  shall  or  shall  not  teach ;  you 
are  bound  both  "to  teach  and  do  all  that  the  Lord  thy 
God  hath  commanded  thee."  And  he  hath  taught 
thee  to  consecrate  thy  children,  as  well  as  thyself,  to 
him  in  holy  baptism ;  as  we  shall  now  show  by  proof 
drawn  more  directly  from  His  own  word. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

Direct  Scripture  proof — Infants  have  the  necessary  Qualifications 
for  Baptism — Their  claim  more  clear  than  that  "of  any  adult — 
Eomans,  v.  12,  18,  19,  explained — The  infant  has  *  the  same 
qualifications  for  baptism  that  Abraham  had  for  circumcision  ; 
the  same  that  believing  adults  have  for  baptism — A  close  con- 
nection between  Infant  Baptism  and  Infant  Salvation  on  the 
one  hand,  and  between  Antipedobaptism  and  Infant  Damnation 
on  the  other — Remarks  on  the  moral  nature  of  Infants. 

We  will  now  defend  infant  baptism  by  a  direct 
appeal  to  the  word  of  God.  And  in  doing  this  we 
purpose  to  show  that  the  infant  derives  its  right  to 
baptism,  not  from  its  parents  or  from  the  Church,  but 
from  Jesus  Christ,  through  whose  atonement  it  has 
also  a  qualification  for  baptism,  and  that  qualification 
is  justification  y  and  both  the  right  to,  and  qualifica- 
tion for,  baptism,  it  has  unconditionally.  And  both 
the  right  to,  and  qualification  for,  baptism  being 
unconditional,  it  will  follow,  of  course,  that  if  any  one 
infant  has  the  right  and  the  qualification,  all  infants 
have ;  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  Jesus  did  not  die  for 
all;  and  this  cannot  be  shown  till  it  is  first  shown 
that  the  following  and  similar  declarations  contain  a 
falsehood.  "One  died  for  all."  "He,  by  the  grace 
of  God,  tasted  death  for  every  man."    Now,  we  take 


112  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

the  ground  that  what  is  thus  secured  to  infants,  can- 
not be  taken  from  them  bj  the  whims  and  fancies  of 
men,  nor  yet  by  the  enactments  of  Synods  and  Coun- 
cils. True,  men  may  deprive  infants  of  baptism  as 
they  may  deprive  them  of  food,  but  their  right 
thereto  remains  unaliena  ted  and  inalienable  ! 

Having  thus  stated  our  position  and  purpose,  we 
now  proceed  to  the  proof. 

The  first  Scripture  we  quote  is  from  the  fifth  chap- 
ter of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  We  quote  verses 
12,  18  and  19  together,  because  they  are  evidently 
connected,  the  intervening  verses  being  parenthetical. 
"  Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin,  and  so  death  passed  upon 
all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned.  Therefore,  as  by 
the  offense  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to 
condemnation,  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one, 
the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of 
life.  For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were 
made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many 
be  made  righteous." 

Let  us  now  carefully  notice  what  it  is  that  Paul 
says  "  came  upon  all  men,"  and  how  it  came.  And, 
observe,  we  have  nothing  to  do  just  here  with  what 
came,  or  may  come,  upon  any  individual  by  his  own 
individual  acts;  we  have  only  to  do  with  what  ';came 
upon  all,"  "  by  one." 

Here  are  the  specifications ;  some  of  them  are 
quoted  from  the  parenthetical  verses,  they  being 
explanatory  of  the  verses  which  we  have  quoted 
above : 

"  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world."  "Judg- 


QUALIFICATIONS   FOE   BAPTISM.  113 

ment  came  upon  all  men."  That  is,  the  sentence  of 
the  Judge,  or,  as  we  sometimes  say,  the  sentence  of  a 
broken  law ;  and  that  sentence  is  specifically  declared 
to  be  "condemnation,"  "death." 

We  now  enquire  how  was  all  this  brought,  or  caused 
by  one?  The  answer  is,  "by  one  that  sinned;"  "by 
one  man's  offence;"  "by  one  man's  disobedience;" 
by  "Adam's  transgression." 

So  much  "came  upon  all  men,"  in  the  way  here 
specified.  So  far  there  can  be  no  mistake,  for  we 
have  Paul's  declaration  for  every  particular.  Of 
course  the  judgment,  or  sentence,  was  not  fully  exe- 
cuted upon  our  first  parents,  in  consequence  of  the 
gracious  interposition  of  onr  Savior.  If  it  had  been, 
it  would  have  extended  to  their  unborn  posterity, 
resulting  in  the  non-existence  thereof;  so  that  the 
entire  posterity  of  the  guilty  pair  owe  their  very 
existence  to  Jesus  !  But  we  are  anticipating  the  next 
question. 

Having  seen  what  it  is  that  "  came  upon  all  by 
one,"  even  by  Adam ;  let  us  now  see  what  it  is  that 
"came  upon  all  men"  by  one,  even  by  Christ. 

Here,  too,  let  it  be  distinctly  noticed,  we  have 
nothing  to  do  with  what  came,  or  may  come,  upon 
any  individual  conditionally,  for  what  is  here  specified 
"came"  before  those  to  whom  it  "came"  were  capa- 
ble of  performing  a  condition ;  this  is  not  only  stated 
by  the  apostle  at  different  times,  especially  in  this 
chapter,  and  more  especially  in  the  verses  quoted 
above,  but  it  is  implied  in  the  very  specifications 
themselves.  The  specifications  are  these :  "  The 
grace  of  God;"  "the  free  gift;"  "the  gift  of  grace." 
10 


114  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

And  all  this  "came  upon  all  unto  justification  of  life." 
The  "judgment"  which  "came  upon  all"  was  "unto 
condemnation,"  and  the  "free  gift"  which  "came 
upon  all"  was  "  unto  justification  of  life."  In  the  one 
case,  "condemnation"  came,  and  life  was  forfeited; 
in  the  other,  "justification"  came,  and  life  was 
restored;  and,  all  this,  in  each  case,  so  far  as  Adam's 
posterity  was  concerned,  without  their  own  personal 
act;  the  "condemnation"  came  through  Adam,  the 
"justification"  through  Christ. 

But  how  did  this  "grace  of  God,"  and  this  "gift 
of  grace,"  "  come  upon  all  ?"  The  apostle  tells  us  in 
the  following  words :  "  By  the  righteousness  o/oxe  ;" 
"  by  the  obedience  of  oxe."  The  results  of  Adam's 
sin  to  his  infant  posterity,  are  removed  by  Christ's 
righteousness  ;  the  results  of  Adam's  "disobedience" 
tohisinfant  posterity  are  removed  by  the  "obedience" 
of  Christ,  who  "became  obedient  unto  death,  even 
the  death  of  the  cross."  Thus  the  great  Redeemer, 
the  Restorer,  has  fairly  met  the  results  of  Adam's 
"  offense,"  so  far  as  his  unacting  posterity  are  con- 
cerned, and  it  is  of  them  that  we  are  now  speaking. 
The  "  condemnation  "  that  came  upon  Adam's  pos- 
terity, by  Adam's  disobedience  without  their  own 
act,  is  removed  by  the  "justification"  that  came 
through  Christ's  righteousness  without  their  own  act. 
So  that  every  infant  sustains  a  justified  relation  to 
God,  through  Christ's  atonement,  and  this  is  its  qual- 
ification for  baptism  ;  and  this  same  justification  is 
that  which  qualifies  adult  believers  for  baptism ;  and 
it  was  justification  that  qualified  Abraham  for  circum- 
cision; and  all    this  Paul  asserts  and  proves   in  the 


QUALIFICATIONS    FOR    BAPTISM.  115 

Scripture  before  us.  In  the  last  verse  of  the  fourth 
chapter,  he  says  "  Christ  was  delivered  for  our 
offences,  and  was  raised  again  for  our  dinaiomv,  justi- 
fication ;  and  in  the  18th  verse  of  the  following  chap- 
ter, when  speaking  of  what  "came  upon  all"  through 
the  sin  of  Adam,  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  he 
says,  "by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came 
upon  all  men  unto  dmaiuGiv  Zaqg,  justification  of  life. 
Now  this  very  blessing  he  tells  us  Abraham  received 
not  by  works  but  by  faith.  And  in  the  11th  verse  of 
the  fourth  chapter  we  are  told  "he  received  the  sign 
of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the 
faith  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircumcised."  The 
word  which  in  this  verse  is  translated  righteousness 
is  the  same  in  the  original  as  that  translated  justifica- 
tion in  verse  25  of  the  same  chapter,  and  in  verse  18 
of  the  following  chapter,  as  any  one  may  see  by  look- 
ing into  his  Greek  Testament;  and  Dr.  Adam  Clarke 
says  "it  is  best  rendered  justification,  as  expressing 
that  pardon  and  salvation  offered  to  us  in  the  Gospel." 
A  righteous  act,  a  righteous  state,  and  the  act  and 
state  of  pardon ;  all  are  expressed  by  words,  all  of 
which  are  derived  from  the  same  root  and  that  root 
is  Amaiog,  which  means  just  or  right.  Hence  we 
have  diJcaiothentes,  being  justified;  diJcaiosune, 
the  state  of  being  upright;  dikaiosune,  justly, 
righteously;  and  dikaiosin,  justification.  This 
word  has  always  reference  to  law,  and  is  used  to 
to  express  something  in  harmony  with,  or  contrary  to, 
law;  as  righteousness  or  unrighteousness.  Now  why 
such  a  word  should  be  used  to  express  the  act  and 
state  cf  pardon,  why  the  words  justified  and  pardoned 


116  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM, 

should  be  used  interchangeably  and  synonymously  ; 
why  they  should  be  used  to  express  one  and  the  same 
thing,  as  they  certainly  are  by  this  apostle  in  the 
Scriptures  now  under  consideration,  seems  at  first 
sight  unaccountable,  for  pardon  has  nothing  to  do 
with  law,  unless  to  set  it  at  defiance ;  at  least  this  is 
true  of  pardon  as  usually  understood.  For  instance, 
if  one  should  take  away  my  property  by  fraud,  and  I 
should  pardon  him  fully  and  sincerely,  the  law  would 
take  no  notice  of  my  pardon,  but  would  hold  him 
guilty,  and  pronounce  sentence  just  as  readily  after 
I  had  pardoned  as  before ;  and  this  is  alike  true  both 
of  human  and  divine  law.  Why,  then,  is  the  guilty 
culprit  said  to  be  justified  when  God  pardons  him? 
The  fact  is,  God's  pardon  is  like  no  other  pardon, 
because  it  is  in  harmony  with  law;  and  it  is  in  har- 
mony with  law  because,  though  the  guilty  is  pardoned, 
the  claims  of  the  law  are  satisfied,  are  fully  met,  by 
the  atonement.  Though  the  sinner  is  pardoned  there 
is  no  compromise  with  justice,  its  claims  are  fully  met, 
it  is  satisfied,  and  the  sinner  now  stands  acquitted  in 
the  eye  of  the  law.  Hence  the  same  apostle  says, 
"There  is,  therefore,  now,  no  condemnation  to  them 
that  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  And  again,  "Who  shall 
lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect?  It  is  God 
that  justifieth?  who  is  he  that  condemneth?  It  is 
Christ  that  died,  yea,  rather,  that  is  risen  again,  wTho 
is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh 
intercession  for  us."  None  but  God  Almighty  can 
pardon  thus,  no  other  being  can  possibly  do  s  > ;  and 
ti  ere  was  only  one  way  in  which  he  could  do  it, 
namely,  by  an   atonement;    "For,"  says   the    same 


QUALIFICATIONS    FOR    BAPTISM.  117 

apostle,  "If  there  had  been  a  law  given  which  could 
have  given  life,  verily,  righteousness  should  have  be^n 
by  the  law."  Gal.  iii.  21.  But  there  was  no  such  law, 
it  is  only  by  an  atonement,  according  to  the  same 
authority  that  God  could  be  "just,"  and  at  the  same 
time  justify  or  pardon.  Rom.  iii.  26.  And  while  this 
could  be  done  only  by  an  atonement,  that  atonement 
could  only  be  made  in  the  way  it  was  made ;  "  there 
remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin,"  says  the  same 
authority. 

Xow,  then,  let  us  sum  up,  and  we  shall  find  the 
amount  to  be  this.  The  infant  has  the  same  qualifi- 
cation for  baptism  that  Abraham  had  for  circumcision, 
and  that  qualification  is  justification;  and  it  receives 
baptism  for  the  same  reason  that  Abraham  received 
circumcision,  namely,  because  it  is  justified ;  and  it 
receives  baptism  for  the  same  purpose  that  Abraham 
received  circumcision,  namely,  as  the  "  sign "  and 
"seal"  of  "righteousness,"  or  "justification,"  pre- 
viously received ;  and  this  right  to  and  qualification 
for,  baptism,  it  has  from  the  same  source,  the 
very  same  source,  from  which  Abraham  received 
his  right  to  and  qualification  for,  circumcision. 
The  only  difference  in  the  case  is  this :  Abraham 
received  justification  conditionally,  viz.,  by  faith, 
but  the  infant  receives  justification  uncondition- 
ally; Abraham's  justification  removed  the  condemna- 
tion brought  upon  him  by  his  own  transgressions,  as 
well  as  the  condemnation  brought  upon  him  by  the 
original  offence ;  while  the  infant's  justification  sim- 
ply removes  the  condemnation  brought  upon  it  by  the 
original    apostasy,    it  having  no  act  of  its  own ;  but 


118  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  result  of  justification  in  each  case  is  precisely  the 
same,  viz.,  this,  the  justified  party  in  each  case,  is 
placed  right  with  regard  to  the  law ;  for,  as  we  before 
observed,  justification,  or  pardon,  is  a  relative  change, 
by  which  the  relation  of  the  justified  party  is  changed 
with  regard  to  the  law,  and  consequently,  with  regard 
to  the  Lawgiver.  In  a  word,  all  who  are  justified 
stand  accepted  before  God  the  Judge,  and  in  the  eye 
of  the  law,  so  that  there  is  no  condemnation  for  the 
past.  Hence  infants  being  thus  justified  through  the 
atonement,  or,  as  Paul  expresses  it  in  the  text  quoted 
above,  "  through  the  righteousness  of  one,"  even 
Christ,  they  have  the  same  right  to  the  seal  of  the 
covenant,  that  believing  adults  have,  the  same  right 
that  Abraham  had  when  he  was  justified  and  received 
the  seal  accordingly.  Now  as  this  qualification  is 
received  unconditionally,  it  follows,  as  we  said  before, 
that  if  one  infant  has  it,  all  have  it ;  and  as  this  qual- 
ification is  from  Christ,  and  unconditional,  it  follows, 
too,  that  the  parents  have  nothing  to  do  either  with  qual- 
ifying or  disqualifying  them ;  as  they  have  justification 
through  Christ,  and  are  thus  qualified  for  baptism 
despite  the  sin  of  their  first  parents,  so  they  have 
this  qualification  and  right,  despite  the  disobedience 
of  their  second  parents ;  they  are  not  qualified  for 
baptism  either  by  the  faith  or  the  holiness  of  their 
parents  but  by  the  atonement  of  Christ;  if  the 
parents  have  faith  enough  to  present  their  children 
for  baptism,  that  answers  all  purposes,  so  far  as  the 
children  are  concerned;  and  being  thus  presented,  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  minister  of  Christ  to  baptize  them, 
and  to  enjoin  it  upon  the  parents  to  teach  them  to  fear 


QUALIFICATIONS    FOE    BAPTISM.  119 

and  worship  that  God  to  whom  they  have  now  conse- 
crated them  in  holy  baptism  ;  and  to  remind  them  that 
they  are  bound  by  the  most  sacred  obligations,  and 
now  by  consistency  itself,  to  consecrate  themselves  to 
that  God  to  whom  they  have  consecrated  their  chil- 
dren. I  have  utterly  failed  to  discover  where  any 
minister  finds  his  authority  for  refusing  baptism  to 
any  infant  that  maybe  presented  to  him  by  its  parents 
for  that  purpose. 

Finally,  from  the  Scriptures  here  quoted,  I  think 
we  are  inevitably  forced  to  the  following  conclusions. 
All  infants  have,  through  the  atonement,  uncondition- 
ally a  right  to,  and  a  qualification  for,  baptism ;  and 
that  qualification  is  the  very  same  qualification  that 
Abraham  had  for  circumcision,  the  very  same  that 
believing  adults  have  for  baptism,  namely,  justifica- 
tion ;  and  this  justification,  of  course,  does  the  very 
same  thino-  for  the  infant  that  it  does  for  the  believing 
adult,  namely,  this,  it  puts  it  right  with  regard  to  the 
law,  by  removing  the  condemnatory  sentence  of  the 
law,  for  this  is  the  sole  office  of  justification  whether 
the  party  be  an  infant  or  an  adult.  Thus  infants, 
through  the  atonement,  sustain  precisely  the  same 
relation  to  the  law,  and  to  God,  the  judge  of  all,  that 
believing  adults  do;  the  very  same  that  Abraham  did 
when  he  was  justified,  and  that  is  a  justified  relation. 
Hence  we  see  why  it  is  that  infants,  as  well  as  Abra- 
ham, "  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,"  which  Paul 
says  was  "  a  seal  of  the  righteousness,''''  or  justification 
previously  had.  Now  when  we  know,  upon  Scripture 
authority,  that  God  commanded  Abraham  and  infant 
children  to  be  circumcised,  and  know,  too,  on  the  same 


120  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

authority,  that  circumcision  was  a  seal  of  justification 
previously  had,  we  thereby  know  that  infants,  as  well 
as  Abraham,  were  justified,  or  they  would  not  have 
received  the  seal  of  justification,  for  that  would  be 
affixing  the  seal  of  justification  to  those  who  were  not 
justified ;  which  would  not  only  be  an  unmeaning  act, 
but  a  delusive  act,  Nay,  it  would  be  affixing  the  seal 
to  an  untruth ! 

The  conclusion  here  reached  secures  the  salvation 
of  all  infants,  dying  as  such.  Those  who  reject  this 
conclusion  are  shut  up  to  one  of  two  conclusions,  viz., 
that  all  infants  are  lost,  or  a  certain  part  of  them ; 
and  if  they  adopt  the  latter  conclusion,  they  thereby 
represent  God  as  damning  infants  whom  he  might 
have  saved,  for  if  he  saved  a  part  he  certainly  might 
have  saved  all,  seeing  all  were  alike  incapable  of 
offering  resistance  to  the  means  employed  for  their 
salvation ;  and  if  they  do  not  like  this  or  the  preced- 
ing conclusion,  then  they  must  adopt  infant  baptism ; 
for  if  the  infant  is  justified  and  fitted  for  heaven  with- 
out its  own  act,  it  certainly  may  be,  and  is  fitted  for 
baptism  without  its  own  act.  Thus  we  see  that  there 
is  a  close  connection  between  infant  baptism  and  infant 
salvation  on  the  one  hand ;  and  an  equally  close  connec- 
tion between  Antipedobaptism,  and  infant  damna- 
tion on  the  other ! 

Again,  Antipedobaptists  "  will  baptize  on  profes- 
sion" and  on  profession  only.  That  is,  they  will 
baptize  one  who  "  indulges  a  hope  that  he  has  met 
with  a  change."  But  what  does  this  mean?  Why, 
it  means  just  this,  if  it  means  anything  to  the  pur- 
pose; he  indulges  a  hope  that  he  is  justified,  or  par- 


QUALIFICATIONS   FOR   BAPTISM.  121 

cloned.  So  that  they  have  not  even  his  word  for  it, 
but  merely  his  hope  :  and  upon  this  evidence  they 
baptize  him.  But  we  have  God's  word  for  it  that  the 
infant  is  "justified  freely  by  his  grace  through  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus."  And  on  this 
evidence  we  baptize  it !  This,  then,  is  the  difference  ; 
by  so  much  as  God's  testimony  is  better  than  that  of 
man's  professed  hope,  by  so  much  is  our  authority 
for  baptizing  the  infant  better  than  their  authority 
for  baptizing  the  adult!  And  in  the  same  way  we 
reach  the  conclusion,  that  no  adult  under  heaven  has 
as  clear  a  claim  to  the  rite  of  baptism  as  has  the 
infant;  because  we  have  God's  testimony  in  favor  of 
the  justification  of  the  infant,  while  we  have  only 
man's  testimony  in  favor  of  the  justification  of  the 
adult,  and  that  the  testimony  of  the  interested  party, 
the  party  seeking  baptism ;  and  the  party  judging  in 
the  case  is  also  interested,  being  under  the  influence 
of  a  desire  to  make  accessions  to  his  church  and 
party!  Nor  does  the  preponderance  in  our  favor 
stop  here,  for  we  not  only  have  God's  testimony  in 
favor  of  the  infant's  qualification  for  baptism,  but  we 
have  his  command  to  apply  to  the  infant  the  very  same 
seal  that  he  commanded  to  be  applied  to  the  adult, 
viz.,  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  the  seal  of  justification 
obtained  through  the  atonement;  which  justification 
is  obtained  by  the  adult  conditionally,  and  by  the 
infant  unconditionally.  It  follows  that  he  who  will 
have  better  authority  for  anything  that  he  does  than 
we  have  for  baptizing  the  infant,  must  have  better 
than  the  testimony  and  the  command  of  the  Almighty ! 
Truly  they  are  seriously  defective  in  Bible  knowledge 
11 


122  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

who  exclude  infants  from  Christian  baptism;  and  I 
do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  Antipedobaptism  origin- 
ated in  an  ignorance  of,  and  is  at  variance  with,  some 
of  the  first  and  most  giorioas  principles  of  the  Chris- 
tian system ;  and  upon  that  ignorance  it  is  that  it 
depends  principally  for  its  propagation ;  and  it  is 
high  time  that  this  error  and  the  ignorance  of  which 
it  is  the  offspring  should  be  driven  out  of  Christen- 
dom !  Infants  are  redeemed.  Jesus  claims  them  all 
as  the  purchase  of  his  blood,  and  says,  "  Suffer  little 
children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for 
of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God."  And  every  minis- 
ter of  Jesus  should  unite  with  Jesus  in  rebuking 
those  who  forbid  their  being  brought  to  Jesus,  and 
should  iterate  and  reiterate  the  words  of  Jesus,  say- 
ing, "Forbid  them  not."  And  they  should  unite 
with  Paul  in  uttering  that  glorious  truth  upon  which 
we  have  been  commenting,,  and  upon  which  we 
delight  to  dwell ;  "  Therefore,  as  by  the  offence  of 
one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation, 
even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift 
came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life."  These 
truths  should  be  uttered  by  Zion's  watchmen  joyous- 
ly and  incessantly;  and  should  come  pealing  like 
thunder  from  every  part  of  Zion's  walls.  And  they 
should  be  taken  up  by  the  inhabitants  of  Zion  and 
uttered  with  such  rapturous  joy  that  their  voices  com- 
mingling should  be  as  the  sound  of  many  waters ; 
then  should  the  dolorous,  owl-like  cry  of  the  Anti- 
pedobaptist  be  heard  no  more  ! 

If  by  the   sin   of  our  first  parents  their  posterity 
were  excluded  from  the   Kingdom   of  God  without 


QUALIFICATIONS    FOE    BAPTISM.  123 

their  own  act,  and  are  not  restored  by  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  without  their  own  act,  it  will  follow 
that  Adam  did  more  to  destroy  than  Christ  did  to 
save,  and  if  so,  Paul  uttered  an  untruth  when  he  said, 
"  Where  sin  abounded  grace  did  much  more  abound." 
But  as  we  cannot  adopt  either  of  these  conclusions, 
we  are  forced,  in  this  way  also,  to  adopt  the  conclu- 
sion which  we  claim  to  have  established,  viz.,  that 
the  condemnation  which  came  by  Adam's  sin,  is 
removed  by  the  justification  which  came  by  Christ's 
righteousness;  and  the  parties  who  by  that  condem- 
nation were  excluded  from  God's  Kingdom,  and,  con- 
sequently, from  eternal  life,  by  a  non-existence,  are 
by  this  justification  restored  thereto.  And  if  they 
are  justified  and  restored  to  God's  Kingdom  through 
the  atonement,  we  may  well  say  in  the  language  of 
Peter,  "  Can  any  forbid  water  that  these  should  not 
be  baptized?"  for  justification  received  without  faith 
qualifies  for  circumcision  or  for  baptism  just  as  much 
as  a  justification  received  by  faith;  for  justification 
is  the  same  whether  received  conditionally  or  uncon- 
ditionally. 

In  the  light  of  these  teachings  we  are  prepared,  I 
trust,  to  see  more  clearly,  and  to  appreciate  more 
fully,  the  following  blessed  and  altogether  glorious 
words  of  our  Almighty  Savior  !  "And  they  brought 
young  children  to  him  that  he  should  touch  them ; 
and  his  disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought  them. 
But  when  Jesus  saw  it  he  was  much  displeased,  and 
said  unto  them,  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come 
unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God.     Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever 


124  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child, 
he  shall  not  enter  therein.  And  he  took  them  in  his 
arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them." — 
Markx.  13-17. 

Now,  with  this  passage  before  us,  we  will  call  atten- 
tion to  and  make  a  few  remarks  upon  the  following 
particulars,  which  may  be  considered  the  more  prom- 
inent features  of  the  passage.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  Anabaptists  speak  of  "  unconscious  babes,"  as 
though  neither  God  nor  man  could  do  anything  for 
them;  but  the  following  particulars  convey  a  very 
different  idea. 

The  first  particular  to  which  we  call  attention  is 
this :  infants  are  susceptible  of  the  divine  blessing,  for 
we  are  told  that  "Jesus  took  them  in  his  arms,  put 
Ms  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them."  I  say 
infants,  for  Luke  calls  these  "  little  children  "  infants. 

Now,  let  us  not  look  upon  all  this  as  mere  form ; 
when  "  the  Lord  of  life  and  glory"  pronounces  bless- 
ing upon  the  infant  that  is  brought  to  him  by  the 
parent's  hands,  and  by  the  parent's  heart,  his  utter- 
ances are  not  mere  unmeaning  words ;  His  blessing 
means  something !  Let  it  be  remembered,  too,  that 
it  is  by  His  righteousness  that  "  the  free  gift  came  upon 
all  men  unto  justification  of  life,"  and  that "  the  bless- 
ing of  the  Lord,  it  maketh  rich,"  and  infants  have  that 
blessing.  Yes,  they  have  it,  for  we  have  heard  "the 
Lord  of  life  and  glory"  pronounce  his  blessing  upon 
them,  even  upon  the  infants  that  were  brought  unto 
Him.  Who,  then,  would  refuse  to  bring  their  infant 
children  to  this  "Lord  of  life  and  glory?"  and  when 
parents  bring  their  infant  children  unto  Him,  who 


•qualifications  for  baptism.  125 

will  dare  to  "forbid  them?"  We  know  none  in 
Christendom  who  would  do  so  but  Antipedobaptists  ! 
Let  it  be  remembered,  too,  that  if  one  infant  is  capa- 
ble or  susceptible  of  receiving  "the  blessing  of  the 
Lord,"  all  are ;  for  all  infants  are  alike  incapable  of 
offering  resistance  to  the  Divine  will.  Oh,  let  not 
parents  or  ministers  resist  that  will,  by  doing  what 
those  did  with  whom  Jesus  was  "  much  displeased  ;" 
and  remember,  he  is  as  much  displeased  with  that  act 
now  as  he  was  then.  But  rather  than  admit  that 
Jesus  is  capable  of  blessing  the  soul  of  an  infant, 
Antipedobaptists  have  invented  the  marvelous  idea 
that  the  infants  here  spoken  of  were  brought  to  Jesus  to 
have  some  bodily  disease  healed !  By  this  invention 
they  represent  the  disciples  as  forbidding  their  being 
brought  for  this  purpose,  a  thing  they  never  did,  for 
it  was  customary  to  bring  all  manner  of  sick  persons 
to  Jesus ;  and  they  represent  Jesus  as  insisting  that 
diseased  infants  should  be  brought  to  him  for  the  pur- 
pose of  being  healed,  and  as  giving  this  reason,  "  for 
of  such  is  the  Kingdom  of  God."  Certainly,  this 
objection  does  not  deserve  further  notice. 

We  next  call  attention  to  the  phrase,  "  Of  such  is 
the  Kingdom  of  God."  Now  if  we  understand  this 
phrase,  "Kingdom  of  God,"  or,  as  St.  Matthew 
expresses  it,  "  Kingdom  of  Heaven,"  to  mean  the 
future  home  of  God's  people,  then  these  words  of 
Jesus  assure  us  that  infants  are  heirs  of  that  Kingdom 
with  all  those  adults  whose  names  are  written  in 
heaven.  But  if  we  are  to  understand  by  this  phrase, 
the  Church  of  God  upon  the  earth,  then  we  are  taught 
to  recognize  infants  as  properly  constituted  members 


126  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

of  that  Church,  which  they  certainly  were  under  both 
the  patriarchal  and  Mosaic  dispensations ;  and  surely 
the  perfected  Gospel  dispensation  will  not  exclude 
from  their  place  in  the  Church  those  infants  whom 
the  less  perfect  dispensations  received  into  that  place. 
And  if  we  understand  Jesus  to  teach  us,  as  we  cer- 
tainly must,  that  infants  are,  through  the  atonement, 
members  of  the  Heavenly  Kingdom,  then  certainly 
we  cannot  exclude  them  from  the  earthly  kingdom. 
Hence,  whatever  way  we  understand  the  phrase  we 
must  understand  our  blessed  Lord  as  placing  infants 
in  his  Kingdom,  which  "is  not  of  this  world."  And 
if  we  understand  him  as  teaching  that  adults  who 
constitute  his  Kingdom  must  resemble  little  children, 
as  some  Antipedobaptists  would  interpret  the  words 
"  of  such,"  certainly  their  cause  will  gain  nothing  by 
it,  for  by  this  interpretation  they  make  infants  model 
Christians/  And  if  they  are  model  Christians,  we 
desire  to  know  upon  what  ground  they  refuse  to  bap- 
tize them! 

"A  more  correct  translation,"  says  Mr.  Watson, 
on  the  place,  "  would  be.  For  to  such  belongeth  the 
Kingdom  of  God." 

We  may  now  glance  at  the  words, "  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  Kingdom  of  God  as 
a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein."  Now  if  we 
take  the  ground  that  infants  do  not  receive,  do  not 
share  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  how  could  our  blessed 
Lord  teach,  as  he  here  does,  that  we  must  all  receive 
it  as  they  do  ?  And  unless  we  attribute  this  absurdity 
to  our  Lord,  we  must  understand  him  as  teaching 
that  infants  do  receive  the  Kingdom,  do  belong  to  the 


QUALIFICATIONS    FOR    BAPTISM,  127 

Kingdom  of  God.  But  how  do  infants  receive  the 
Kingdom  of  God  ?  Like  a  pharisee,  by  fasting  twice 
in  the  week,  and  paying  tithe  of  all  that  they  pos- 
sess ?  Certainly  not.  How  then  do  they  receive  it? 
By  works  of  righteousness  which  they  have  done? 
By  no  means ;  the  helpless  infant  has  neither  tithe  nor 
works  of  any  kind.  How,  then,  do  they  receive  it? 
By  merit  of  any  kind?  No,  not  by  merit  of  any 
kind.  How,  then,  do  they  receive  it?  Paul  tells  us, 
in  the  words  which  we  have  quoted  several  times 
already,  they  receive  it  as  a  "free  gift;"  they  were 
"justified  freely  by  his  grace;"  "  the  free  gift  came 
upon  all  unto  justification  of  life."  And  just  so  every 
child  of  man  must  receive  it,  or  not  at  all.  Only  in  the 
case  of  adults  who  are  accountable  for  actions  of  their 
own,  and  must  now  be  treated  as  moral  agents,  faith 
is  required  as  a  condition.  But  still  they  receive  the 
Kingdom  of  God  as  a  "  free  gift."  Still  it  is  by  grace 
they  are  saved  through  faith,  and  that  not  of  them- 
selves; "it  is  the  gift  of  God."  Here  we  are  again 
taught  that  infants  and  believing  adults  receive  the 
same  kingdom,  and  both  receive  it  as  a  "  free  gift,"  and 
for  precisely  the  same  reason  each  is  entitled  to  the  seal 
of  the  covenant,  the  seal  of  justification  already  received 
as  a  "free  gift,"  through  the  atonement.  How,  then, 
dare  any  one  rebuke  those  who  bring  their  beloved 
infants  to  Jesus  in  holy  baptism,  seeing  they  are  his 
by  redemption,  his  by  justification,  as  truly  as  are 
believing  adults  ?  For  those  who  did  so  before  Jesus 
uttered  the  above \vords,  there  might  be  some  excuse; 
but  for  those  who  do  so  in  defiance  of  these  teachings 
and  reproofs  of  Jesus,  it  is  difficult,  very  difficult,  if 


128  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

at  all  possible,  to  find  any  excuse.  Let  them  remem- 
ber, however,  that  with  such  conduct  "Jesus  was 
much  displeased,"  and  let  all  who  are  rebuked  by 
them  for  bringing  their  children  to  Jesus,  treat  their 
rebukes  as  Jesus  did. 

In  speaking  of  the  qualification  of  Infants  for  bap- 
tism, it  will  be  seen  that  we  did  not  find  that  qualifi- 
cation in  the  goodness  of  their  moral  nature.  Our 
teachings  here  are  not  Pelagian,  nor  are  they  in  the 
least  tainted  with  Pelagianism.  It  is  quite  certain 
that  infants  come  into  the  world  with  a  nature  mor- 
ally depraved.  The  word  of  God  is  neither  equivo- 
cal nor  obscure  on  that  point.  Man  is  made  to 
declare  that  fact  with  his  own  lips,  in  these  words: 
"I  was  shapen  in  iniquity;  and  in  sin  did  my 
mother  conceive  me."  "The  wicked  are  estranged 
from  the  womb."  God  has  not  told  us  token  or  how 
he  rectifies  the  moral  nature  of  the  infant.  Hence  it 
were  folly  for  man  to  undertake  to  tell  what  God  has 
not  told.  But  he  has  told  us  that  the  condemnation 
brought  upon  it  by  the  apostasy  of  the  first  parents 
is  removed  by  an  unconditional  justification  vouch- 
safed through  the  atonement.  And  this  relative 
change  which  sets  it  right  with  regard  to  the  law,  is 
its  qualification  for  baptism.  Although  it  is  not  for 
us  to  say,  nor  does  our  argument  require  us  to  say, 
why  God  has  not  spoken  as  clearly  with  regard  to 
the  positive,  as  he  has  with  regard  to  the  relative 
change,  we  may  observe,  that  the  relative  change 
could  take  place  before  the  child  had  a  positive  exist- 
ence, but  the  positive  change  could  not.  And  it  is 
proper  to  observe,  too,  that  when  adults  are  justified 


QUALIFICATIONS   FOR   BAPTISM.  !_.' 

their  moral  nature  is  very  far  from  being  perfectly 
pure ;  they  are  not  then  cleansed  from  all  the  natural 
uncleanness,  they  are  not  sanctified  wholly.  Why 
this  is  so,  God  has  not  told  us ;  the  fact,  however, 
we  must  submit  to  in  each  case.  It  is  enough  for  us 
to  know  that  if  God  calls  away  that  infant,  or  that 
newly  justified  adult,  he  will  make  each  meet  for  an 
inheritance  among  the  saints  in  light,  for  "  without 
holiness  no  one  shall  see  the  Lord."  But  why,  or  to 
what  extent  the  further  work  is  left  conditional,  we 
cannot  tell.  We  have  gone  as  far  as  facts  and  reve- 
lation guide  U3. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

The  Argument  from  Apostolic  practice — The  Apostles  baptized  the 
Believing  Father  and  his  House — Remarks  on  the  Greek  words 
Oikos  and  Oikia — Taylor  is  quoted — Some  further  remarks  with 
regard  to  the  Origin  and  History  of  the  Anabaptists. 

We  will  now  glance  at  the  Apostolic  practice  as 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament;  from  which  we 
learn  that  the  Apostles  not  only  baptized  the  head  of 
the  house,  when  converted,  but  the  family  also.  Hence, 
when  the  jailer  believed,  we  are  told  that  "  He  was 
baptized,  he  and  all  his  straightway,"  In  like  man- 
ner, we  are  told  when  Lydia  believed,  "  She  was  bap- 
tized, and  her  household."  And  St.  Paul  says:  "I 
baptized  also  the  house  of  Stephanus." 

But  in  all  these  and  many  other  families  similarly 
spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament,  the  Antipedobap- 
tists  can  find  no  children  ;  they  will  have  it  that  all 
these  families  were  as  childless  as  are  their  own 
churches !  Just  as  soon  as  the  sacred  writers  tell  us 
of  a  man  that  was  baptized,  "  he  and  all  his,"  they 
are  ready  to  say,  " write  this  man  childless!"  But, 
as  Mr.  Watson  says,  "  The  great  difficulty  with  Bap- 
tists is  to  make  a  house  for  Lydia  without  any  chil- 
dren at  all,  young  or  old."  And  I  do  not  know  but  they 


APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE.  131 

think  they  have  succeeded  admirably, when  they  tell  us 
about  certain  journeymen  dyers,  whom  they  conjec- 
ture were  "employed  in  preparing  the  purple  she 
sold  !•"  Of  these  journeymen,  however,  no  mortal 
ever  heard  anything,  but  what  the  Baptists  tell  us ; 
and,  what  is  still  worse,  the  Baptists  themselves  never 
heard  of  such  men ;  it  is  all  made  up  !  And  it  only 
tends,  as  Mr.  Watson  further  observes,  "  to  mark 
more  strikingly  the  helplessness  of  the  attempt  to 
torture  this  passage  in  favor  of  an  opinion." 

As  the  objections  of  the  Antipedobaptists  to  what 
has  been  said  with  regard  to  family  baptisms  by  other 
writers  have  been  frequently  and  fully  answered  ;  and 
as  it  is,  and  has  been,  our  purpose  not  to  follow  the 
beaten  track,  we  will  simply  say,  just  here,  that  it  was 
Lydia  and  her  oikos  that  was  baptized,  not  Lydia 
and  her  journeymen  dyers.  And  when  she  was  bap- 
tized, and  her  oikos,  she  besought  the  Apostles,  say- 
ing, "  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord, 
come  into  my  oikon."  It  was  not  her  oikia,  but  her 
oikost  that  was  baptized  !  Our  opponents  will  please 
look  into  their  Greek  Testaments  and  see  if  this  is 
not  so.  We  beg  to  remind  them,  too,  that  no  man 
speaking  the  Greek  language,  especially  if  he  were 
a  scholar,  as  Luke  was,  would  tell  us  of  the  baptism  of 
Lydia  and  her  oikos,  when  he  meant  Lydia  and  her 
journeymen  dyers !  Moreover,  while  the  sacred  his- 
torian gives  us  a  minute  account  of  Lydia' s  conver- 
sion, he  does  not  say  a  word  about  the  conversion  of 
her  journeymen  dyers !  In  short,  all  this  talk  about 
Lydia' s  journeymen  dyers  is  as  ridiculous  as  it  is 
gratuitous.     Nor  does  the  sacred  historian  say  a  word 


Y6^i  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

about  the  conversion  of  Lydia's  oikos ;  he  simply  tells 
us  that,  being  converted,  "  she  was  baptized  and  her 
oikos;"  for,  there  being  no  Antipedobaptists  in  those 
days,  it  was  entirely  unnecessary  to  say  more ;  seeing 
it  was  the  well-known  and  divinely  established  usage 
to  extend  the  initiatory  rite  to  the  children  of  the 
initiated  parent.  But  no  such  privilege  belonged  to 
the  employes  of  the  believer,  simply  because  their 
employer  was  a  believer;  and  if  Lydia's  hired  men 
had  been  converted,  Luke  would  have  told  us  of  their 
conversion  when  he  told  us  of  their  baptism,  just  as 
he  told  us  of  the  conversion  of  Lydia  when  he  told 
us  of  her  baptism.  But  Luke  has  simply  told  us  of 
the  conversion  of  Lydia  and  of  her  baptism,  and  of 
the  baptism  of  her  oikos  in  consequence.  And  every 
Christian  in  those  days,  when  told  of  Lydia's  conver- 
sion and  baptism,  knew  why  her  oikos  were  baptized, 
just  as  a  Jew  knew  why  the  oikos  of  a  Jew  were  cir- 
cumcised. Every  Jew  knew  that  Ishmael  was  circum- 
cised when  his  lather  Abraham  was,  though  the 
former  was  then  "thirteen  years  old."  And  it  was 
equally  well  known  that  Isaac  was  circumcised  when 
"eight  days  old."  And  this  practice  continued  among 
all  the  worshipers  of  the  true  God  from  that  time  till 
baptism  took  the  place  of  circumcision.  Here,  then, 
we  have  this  fact,  viz.:  that  circumcision  was,  by 
divine  command,  extended  to  the  children  of  believ- 
ing parents  from  the  age  of  eight  days  to  that  of  thir- 
teen years,  without  any  reference  to  their  own  act ! 
Now,  when  Lydia  received  the  seal  of  the  covenant, 
her  children,  her  oikos,  also  received  it,  just  as  did 
the  oikos  of  Abraham  after  their  father  received  it. 


APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE.  133 

Here  is  the  record, Gen.  xvii.  26  :  "In  the  self-same  day 
was  Abraham  circumcised  and  Ishmael,  his  son  ;"  and 
if  Abraham  had  had  other  children,  of  course  they,  too, 
would  have  received  the  seal  of  the  covenant  the  self- 
same day  that  Abraham  and  Ishmael  did.  Now  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  way  it  was,  and  for  the  same  reason, 
that  the  oikos  of  Lydia  received  the  seal  the  self-same 
day  that  their  mother  did.  Agreeably  to  this  exactly, 
are  the  teachings  of  Paul  when  he  says  the  children 
are  holy,  that  is,  sanctified  or  consecrated  to  God  in 
baptism  even  where  one  of  the  parents  is  a  believer; 
so  that  we  have  both  his  teaching  and  practice  for 
baptizing  children,  even  where  only  one  of  the  parents 
is  a  believer,  and  brings  her  children  with  her.  These 
are  facts  that  bid  defiance  to  all  that  can  be  said  by 
the  advocates  of  mere  novelty  ! 

Although  what  is  here  said  is,  we  believe,  a  sufficient 
explanation  and  defence  of  all  the  family  baptisms 
referred  to,  we  will,  nevertheless,  glance  at  the  bap- 
tism of  the  jailer's  family,  as  it  is  recorded  in  Acts 
xvi.,  because  we  think  a  more  critical  examination  of 
the  record  will  elicit  information  not  obtained  without 
a  reference  to  the  original. 

If  you  will  look  into  your  Greek  Testament,  you 
will  find  that  the  reading  is  as  follows :  Verse  30 : 
"  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  And  they  said, 
Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved,  and  thy  oikos.  And  they  spake  unto  him  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  oiTcia. 
And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night  and 
washed  their  stripes  ;  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all 
his,"  not  all  the  oikia,  but  "  all  his."      "And  when 


134:  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

he  had  brought  them  into  his  oikon,he  set  meat  before 
them,   and   rejoiced,  believing   in  God  with  all  his 

Now,  having  before  us  this  brief  and  clear  exhibit 
of  the  sacred  narrative,  in  which  every  one  can  see  the 
words  as  they  are  varied  in  the  original,  but  not  in  the 
common  text,  we  call  attention  to  the  following  par- 
ticulars :  First,  the  promise  and  its  condition  read 
thus :  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou 
shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  oikos."  Second,  "  they  spake 
unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were 
in  his  oikia"  not  oikos,  you  will  observe.  Third,  he 
did  believe,  "and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his," 
Mark,  it  is  not  said  that  he  and  all  his  oikia  were  bap- 
tized, but  "  he  and  all  his."  The  promise  was  to  him 
and  his  oikos,  children ;  the  word  was  preached  to 
him  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  oikia,  not  only  to  him, 
but  to  all  his  household,  all  who  were  present.  But 
we  are  not  told  that  any  believed  except  the  jailer, 
nor  are  we  told  that  any  were  baptized  save  "  he  and 
all  his."  His  children  were  baptized  with  him,  pre- 
cisely as  Paul  had  promised  ;  but  the  others  present, 
and  not  believing,  though  the  word  was  preached  to 
them,  had  no  such  privilege  ;  they  were  not  baptized, 
as  were  "  he  and  all  his."  Now,  he  brought  them  into 
his  oikon  and  "  set  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced, 
believing  in  God  with  all  his  oikon."  Having  obtained 
salvation,  and  he  and  his  family  being  baptized,  he 
prepared  this  eucharistic  feast,  and  "rejoiced  with  all 
his  house,  believing  in  God."  Egalliasato  panoiki 
pepisteukos  to  Theo.  Believing  in  God  as  he  did,  or 
having  believed,  he  rejoiced  with  his  house,  or,  as 


APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE.  135 

some  express  it,  at  the  head  of  his  house.  Panoiki 
is  differently  rendered,  but  the  whole  of  the  34th  verse, 
taken  together,  is  plain  enough ;  the  whole  house  par- 
took of  his  joy  and  he  of  theirs;  but  the  believing  is 
peculiarly  predicated  of  him. 

But  I  desire  more  especially  to  call  attention  to  the 
words  oikos  and  oikia.  The  promise  was  to  the  for- 
mer, the  preaching  to  the  latter,  and  the  baptism  was 
administered  to  him  and  all  his.  These  are  the  facts 
as  recorded. 

Mr.  Taylor,  in  his  admirable  work  on  Baptism, 
entitled  "  Facts  and  Evidences,"  says,  p.  90  :  "  When 
the  Philippian  jailer  enquired,  'What  must  I  do  to  be 
saved?'  the  apostle  answered,  'Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved  and  thy  house.' 
The  oikia,  servants  of  the  jailor,  heard  the  Word; 
but  we  do  not  read  that  one  of  the  oikia  was  baptized, 
saved,  but  this  we  do  read  of  the  jailer,  and  of  all 
his  house  /  which  is  exactly  what  the  apostle  foretold." 
It  will  be  seen  that  Mr.  Taylor  marks  the  same  dis- 
tinction between  the  words  oikos  and  oikia  that  we 
have  pointed  out  above.  Again,  on  p.  60,  speaking 
of  the  baptism  of  Stephanus,  he  says :  "  Scripture 
says  his  family  was  baptized ;  I,  therefore,  believe 
that  fact — Scripture  says  nothing  of  the  baptism  of 
his  household,  I,  therefore,  do  not  believe  it.  JBut  I 
will  believe  it  whenever  a  passage  of  Scripture  shall 
be  produced  in  which  household,  oikia,  is  connected 
with  baptism."  Here  this  ripe  scholar,  after  the  most 
careful  investigation,  tells  us  that  he  has  failed  to  find 
a  single  instance  on  record  where  a  man  and  his  oikia, 
household,  are  said  to  have  been  baptized ;  but  he  does 


136  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

find  it  recorded  that  Lydia  and  her  oikos  were  bap- 
tized, and  that  the  jailer  and  his  oikos  were  baptized ; 
but  although  we  are  told  that  the  apostle  preached 
the  Word  to  the  jailer's  oikia  we  are  not  told  that 
his  oikia  were  baptized.  The  promise  was  to  him 
and  his  children,  oikos,  and  when  he  believed  he  and 
his  were  baptized  according  to  promise ! 

Following  the  above  remarks,  Mr.  Taylor  proceeds 
thus:  "The  mischance  that  our  translators  should 
have  used  the  terms  house  and  household  interchange- 
ably, though  Scripture  preserves  the  distinction,  is 
glaring  respecting  the  family  of  Onesiphorus,  2  Tim- 
othy i.  16,  and  iv.  19.  The  Greek  word  in  one  text 
is  rendered  '  house,'  and  in  the  other  'household,'  not- 
withstanding the  same  persons  are  intended.  Our 
translators  also  have  used  one  word,  household,  to 
express  both  the  family  and  household  of  Stephanus, 
though  Scripture  uses  two  words  in  order  to  make 
the  distinction,  and  certainly  does  not  mean  the  same 
persons.  This  has  produced  confusion,  and  various 
weak  and  inconsistent  arguments."  To  this  fact  we 
have  called  attention  in  the  narrative  of  the  jailer's 
conversion  and  baptism,  where  we  have  shown  that 
the  sacred  historian  has  used  the  words  oikos  and 
oikia,  both  of  which  are  rendered  house,  though  the 
historian  predicates  of  the  one  what  he  does  not  of 
the  other. 

So  convinced  is  Mr.  Taylor  of  the  truthfulness  and 
the  importance  of  this  distinction,  and  of  the  fixed- 
ness of  the  meaning  of  the  word  oikos,  both  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  that  he  wholly  rests  his 
argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism  upon  this  single 


APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE.  137 

point.  Hence,  on  page  14,  lie  says:  "The  argument 
is  brought  to  this  point :  the  Old  Testament  writers 
use  the  term  House  in  the  sense  of  family,  with  a 
special  reference  to  infants  ;  the  New  Testament 
writers  use  the  term  House  exactly  in  the  same  sense 
as  the  Old  Testament  writers ;  therefore,  when  the 
New  Testament  writers  say  that  they  baptized  houses, 
they  mean  to  say  that  they  baptized  infants."  After 
the  most  laborious  investigation,  and  after  quoting 
numerous  texts  of  Scripture,  both  from  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  and  after  producing  a  great  variety 
of  arguments,  such  as  none  but  a  scholar  and  a 
thinker  could  produce,  and  all  to  establish  the  above 
proposition,  he  reaches  such  conclusions  as  the  follow- 
ing, which  I  find  upon  page  89  :  "Being  myself  con- 
vinced that  the  apostles  practiced  infant  baptism,  and 
that  the  evangelist  meant  to  tell  us  so,  I  affirm  that 
the  natural  import  of  the  term  oikos,  family,  includes 
children  of  all  ages.  In  proof,  I  offer  fifty  examples; 
if  fifty  are  not  sufficient,  I  offer  a  hundred  ;  if  a 
hundred  are  not  sufficient,  two  hundred  ;  if  tioo  hun- 
dred are  not  sufficient,  four  hundred.  I  affirm  that 
oilcos  very  often  expresses  the  presence  of  infants  ; 
of  this  I  offer  fifty  examples,  and  if  we  admit  classi- 
cal instances,  fifty  more.  Euripides  alone  affords 
half  the  number,  though  he  frequently  uses  domos 
instead  of  oikos.  More  than  three  hundred  instances 
have  been  examined  which  have  proved  perfectly  satis- 
factory." He  now  goes  on  to  show  that  when  the 
sacred  writers  tell  us  of  the  baptism  of  a  man  and  his 
oikos,  they  thereby  convey  to  us  the  idea  of  infant  bap- 
tism more  undeniably  than  they  could,  perhaps,  in  any 
12 


138  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

other  way.  In  proof  of  this  he  quotes  the  following 
facts,  thus :  "  What  terms  could  the  evangelists  have 
used  to  satisfy  us  of  the  apostolic  practice  of  infant 
baptism?  Had  they  said,  '  We  baptize  infants;^  Ori- 
gin says  this,  and  Baptists  immediately  exclaim,  ''Meta- 
phorical infants  !  metaphorical  infants  ! '  Had  they 
said,  '  We  baptize  children,'  as  the  apostles  Paul  and 
John,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  say,  they  answer, 
*  Metaphorical  children ! '"  Hence  he  concludes  that 
when  the  sacred  writers  use  the  word  oikos  as  they 
have  done,  they  thereby  put  the  fact  of  infant  baptism 
more  effectually  beyond  the  possibility  of  evasion 
than  they  would  have  done  if  they  had  only  used  the 
word  infants  /  for  the  word  family,  or  oikos,  must 
include  infants  and  little  ones ;  and  we  may  more 
plausibly  talk  about  metaphorical  infants,  or  children, 
than  we  could  about  metaphorical  families  !  So  true 
it  is  that  the  Bible  is  right  not  only  as  to  the  ideas, 
which  it  conveys  to  us,  but  also  as  to  the  words  which 
it  employs  for  that  purpose.  The  truth  is,  no  words 
could  be  used  that  would  prevent  certain  people  from 
rejecting  the  right  and  embracing  the  wrong.  Some 
people  will  be  wrong  anyhow  ! 

After  quoting  many  texts  in  the  Old  Testament, 
the  same  author  quotes  the  following :  Ruth  iv.  11,13: 
"  The  Lokd  make  the  woman  that  is  come  into  thine 
house  like  Rachel  and  like  Lea,  which  two  did  build 
the  house  of  Israel :  and  do  thou  worthily  in  Ephratah : 
and  be  famous  in  Bethlehem:  and  let  thine  house  be 
like  the  house  of  Pharez,  whom  Tamar  bare  unto 
Judah,  of  the  seed  which  the  Lord  shall  give  thee  of 
this  young  woman."     "It  is  not  possible,"  continues 


APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE.  139 

our  author,  "by  any  form  of  words  whatever,  to 
express  infants  more  decidedly  than  by  these  appli- 
cations of  the  term  house  :  and  if  there  were  no  other 
text  in  the  Old  Testament,  this  last  alone  is  sufficient 
to  establish  the  proposition  that  the  term  house  in  the 
Old  Testament  language  must  mean  an  infant.  The 
building  up  of  the  house  of  Israel  is  infant  child- 
bearing.  Thy  house — the  'seed  which  the  Lord 
shall  give  thee  of  this  young  woman '  must  mean 
an  infant.  This  is  the  national  and  acknowledged 
language  used  by  *  all  the  people  that  were  in  the  gate,' 
not  by  the  vulgar  only,  but  by  those  well  instructed; 
by  the  elders."  Thus  it  is  that  this  writer  establishes 
the  fact,  viz. :  that  this  word  oikos,  house,  conveys 
the  idea  of  infants,  or  children,  both  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments.  The  Spirit  that  inspired  and  guided 
the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  to  use  this  word  for 
the  purpose  of  conveying  this  idea,  also  inspired  and 
guided  the  New  Testament  writers  to  use  it  for  the 
same  purpose.  Now,  seeing  this  word  had  this  fixed 
and  universally  understood  meaning  among  that 
people  for  some  two  thousand  years,  was  it  possible 
for  them  to  misunderstand  one  of  their  own  writers 
when  he  told  them  that  he  baptized  the  jailer  and  his 
oikos,  Lydia  and  her  oikos,  Stephanus  and  his  oikos? 
I  say,  was  it  possible  for  them  to  understand  him 
otherwise  than  that  he  baptized  the  man  and  his  chil- 
dren, or  the  woman  and  her  children,  as  the  case  might 
be?  And,  waiving  the  consideration  of  inspiration, 
we  ask,  was  it  possible  for  a  Jewish  writer  to  tell  this 
people  that  he  baptized  a  man  and  his  house,  if  he  did 
not  mean  a  man  and  his  children,  especially  infants? 


140  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

And  the  supposition  becomes  the  more  impossible, 
when  it  is  remembered  not  only  that  his  oiJcos  meant 
his  children,  but  that  it  was  the  divinely  appointed 
usage  of  that  people,  and  had  been  so  for  some  two 
thousand  years,  to  apply  the  seal  to  the  children  when 
it  was  applied  to  the  parent.  The  fact  is,  it  seems 
impossible  for  any  one  that  is  not  shamefully  ignorant 
of  the  Bible  and  history,  to  doubt  the  meaning  of  the 
historic  records  of  the  New  Testament  with  regard  to 
the  baptism  of  certain  individuals  and  their  families. 

After  filling  nearly  one  hundred  pages  with  "facts 
and  evidences"  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  this  writer 
closes  his  admirable  work  with  the  following  remarks, 
which  we  think  may  be  useful  just  here : 

"  I  close  these  researches  upon  the  Subject  of 
Christian  Baptism  with  two  inferences. 

"1.  The  Christian  Church  in  the  North,  in  the 
South,  in  the  East,  and  in  the  West,  never  did 
refuse  baptism  to  infants.  Are  the  Baptists,  then, 
wiser  than  all  the  world?  than  all  the  faithful  men 
of  apostolic  ages,  and  than  all  their  contemporaries? 
Is  it  likely  that  they  alone,  of  all  the  millions  of 
Christians  of  every  period  and  nation,  in  spite  of  these 
'  facts  and  evidences,'  should  be  the  only  persons 
who  have  elicited  Scriptural  truth  ? 

"  2.  In  all  Christian  Churches,  baptism  is  a  conse- 
cration to  the  Trinity !  Not  one  uses  any  form  of 
words — the  Baptists  themselves  do  not  use  any  form 
of  words  in  the  administration  of  baptism,  allusive 
to  the  burial  of  the  person  baptized,  as  they  say 
Christ  was  buried.  Had  our  Lord  intended  such  allu- 
sion, He  would  have  said  so I  adhere  to  the 


AP0S10LT0   PRACTICE.  141 

initiatory  words  of  Christ  as  the  best  and  greatest 
authority  on  the  subject;  for  it  is  very  extraordinary 
that  in  a  religion  having  but  two  rites,  they  should 
both  point  at  the  same  thing.  The  death  of  the 
Savior  is  clearly  the  primary  and  direct  purport  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Is  it  likely  or  credible  that  the  pri- 
mary and  direct  purport  of  baptism  should  also  be 
the  death  of  the  Savior  ?  But  if  in  the  initiatory  rite 
there  be  a  commemoration  of  the  interposing  Deity, 
and  in  the  Lord's  Supper  a  commemoration  of  the 
interposing  humanity — if  for  this  reason  consecration 
to  the  Deity  is  sufficient  by  one  act,  and  ought  not  to 
be  repeated,  while  devotedness  to  Jesus,  as  Lord  of 
all,  is  frequently  renewed,  and  to  be  repeated  con- 
tinually, then  there  is  between  the  two  rites  that  dis- 
tinction which  was  evidently  intended,  and  which  it 
well  becomes  all  professors  of  our  common  faith  to 
retain  to  the  latest  generation." 

It  is  a  remarkable,  and  a  very  telling  fact,  that  those 
scholars  who  have  been  most  thorough  in  their  investi- 
gations on  the  subject  of  baptism  have,  as  the  result 
of  their  investigations,  been  most  confident  in  their 
conclusions.  Hence  the  editor  of  Calmet's  Dictionary, 
like  Baxter  and  many  others,  has  utterly  failed  to  find 
anything  clearly  in  favor  of  Anabaptist  notions,  while 
his  vast  accumulation  of  facts  and  evidences  are 
directly  and  irreconcilably  opposed  to  them.  As  an 
antiquarian  he  searches  ancient  churches,  catacombs, 
and  other  places,  and  there  finds  monuments  of  the 
artistic  skill,  and  of  the  piety,  sentiments  and  practice 
of  the  ancient  Christians  ;  monuments  which  have 
stood  there  from  primitive  times,  bearing  their  un- 


142  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

changeable  and  unmistakable  testimony  both  as  to  the 
mode  and  subjects  of  baptism  during  the  early  and  fol- 
lowing ages  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  in  every 
instance  they  testify  that  Anabaptist  notions  are  novel- 
ties! These  ancient  works  of  art  represent  baptism 
as  being  administered  by  pouring  /  and  the  ancient 
inscriptions  testify  to  the  baptism  of  children,  after 
this  manner  :  "To  Aristus  who  lived  eight  months  : 
newly  baptized,  he  went  off  the  first  of  the  nones 
of  June,  A.  D.  389:  Timasius  and  Promotorus  being 
Consuls."  The  original  is  in  Latin,  and  this  is  the 
translation  which  our  author  gives  us.  This  is  only 
one  out  of  the  many  similar  inscriptions  which  he  fur- 
nishes. As  a  philologist  he  searches  with  equal  dili- 
gence, and  discovers  that  the  words  which  refer  to 
the  subject  in  hand  were  fixed  and  unmistakable  in 
their  meaning,  and  that  they  bear  an  equally  decisive 
and  unequivocal  testimony  against  the  same  novelties ; 
and  that  their  testimony  in  favor  of  the  views  here 
contended  for  is  not  less  decisive  and  unequivocal. 
And,  finally,  as  a  student  of  history,  he  discovers  that 
"  the  Christian  Churches  in  the  North,  in  the  South, 
in  the  East,  and  in  the  West,  never  did  refuse  bap- 
tism to  infants  !  "  And  finding  that  neither  he  nor 
any  other  man,  ancient  or  modern,  could  discover 
what  Antipedobaptists  claim  to  have  discovered,  he 
asks :  "  Is  it  likely  that  they  alone,  of  all  the  millions 
of  Christians  of  every  period  and  nation,  in  spite  of 
these  facts  and  evidences,  should  be  the  only  per- 
sons who  have  elicited  Scripture  truth !  "  But  start- 
ling as  is  this  question,  it  will  become  still  more 
startling  if  put  in  this  form,  which  is  really  the  proper 


APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE.  143 

form :  "  Is  it  likely  that  the  fanatics  of  Germany,  such 
as  Thomas  Munzer,  Conrad  Grebel,  John  Matthias, 
and  John  Boccold,  should  discover  what  all  the 
learned,  the  wise,  and  the  good,  both  ancient  and 
modern,  have  failed  to  discover  ?  "  This  is  really  the 
question ;  for  to  the  parties  here  mentioned  we  trace 
the  Antipedobaptist  notions,  and  beyond  these  parties 
we  find  them  not.  If  the  advocates  of  these  notions 
can  find  them  prior  to  these  fanatics,  let  them  tell  us 
when,  and  where  ! 

But  lest  any  should  impose  upon  their  neighbors  by 
bold  assertion  instead  of  argument,  which  is  not  at  all 
an  unfrequent  occurrence,  we  will  here  furnish  a  few 
of  the  facts  of  history. 

To  escape  the  storm  which  was  now  driving  down 
with  terrible  fury  from  the  "  seven  mountains  upon 
which  the  woman  sitteth,"  Luther  was  carried  to  the 
ancient  Castle  of  Wartburg,  where  he  remained  for 
some  twelve  months.  During  his  stay  there  the  Refor- 
mation progressed,  but  there  arose  a  new  set  of 
reformers  claiming  to  be  prophets,  and  like  certain 
reformers  in  olden  times  boasting  great  things.  The 
good  Elector  of  Saxony  being  both  alarmed  and  puz- 
zled, wrote  Luther.  The  great  Reformer  soon  com- 
prehended the  matter,  and  replied  thus  :  "  Your 
Electoral  Grace  has  been  accustomed  for  many  years 
to  seek  for  relics  in  every  country.  God  has  granted 
your  desires,  and  has  sent  you,  without  expense  or 
trouble,   a  complete   cross,    with   nails,   lances,    and 

scourges grace  and  prosperity  to  the  new  relic ! 

Let  your  Highness  only  without  fear  extend 

your  arms,    and   allow  the  nails  to  pierce  the  flesh ! 


14:4c  CHRISTIAN"    BAPTISM. 

I  have  always  expected  that  Satan  would 

send  us  this  plague."  This  plague  first  appeared  in 
the  little  town  of  Zwickau.  The  following  account 
of  it  is  from  D'Aubigne's  History  of  the  Reformation, 
1846.     W.  R.  McPhun,  Glasgow.     Page  579  : 

"There  dwelt  in  this  town  some  men  who,  excited 
by  the  manifestation  of  the  great  events  which  then 
agitated  the  public  mind  in  Christendom,  aspired  to 
the  possession  of  direct  revelations  from  the  Divine 
Being,  instead  of  seeking  with  simplicity  the  sancti- 
fication  of  the  heart,  and  who  pretended  that  they 
were  called  to  complete  the  Reformation  of  which 
Luther  had  weakly  sketched  the  design.  'For  what 
good  purpose  is  it,'  said  they,  '  to  attach  one's  self  so 
exclusively  to  the  Bible  ?  The  Bible  !  Always  the 
Bible!  Can  the  Bible  speak  to  us  ?  Is  it  not  insuf- 
ficient for  our  instruction?  If  God  had  wished  to 
instruct  us  by  means  of  a  book,  would  he  not  have 
sent  us  a  Bible  from  heaven  ?  It  is  by  the  Spirit 
alone  that  we  can  be  enlightened.  God  himself  thus 
speaks  to  us.  God  himself  reveals  to  us  what  we 
ought  to  do  and  what  we  ought  to  say.'  A  simple 
cloth  manufacturer  named  Nicolas  Stork,  declared 
that  the  Angel  Gabriel  had  appeared  to  him  during 
the  night,  and  that,  after  having  communicated  many 
things  which  he  could  not  yet  reveal,  the  angel  had 
said  :  '  Thou  thyself  shalt  sit  upon  my  throne.'  One 
of  the  former  students  at  Wittemberg,  called  Mark 
Stubner,  united  himself  to  Stork,  and  immediately 
abandoned  his  studies ;  because,  as  he  said,  he  received 
directly  from  God  the  gift  of  interpreting  the  Holy 
Scriptures.       Mark    Thomas,    another    cloth    manu- 


APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE.  1^5 

facturer,  also  joined  the  party ;  while  a  new  adept, 
Thomas  Munzer,  a  man  of  a  fantastic  disposition, 
imparted  a  regular  organization  to  the  body  of  this 
new  sect.  Stork,  wishing  to  follow  the  example  of 
Christ,  chose  from  among  his  adherents  twelve 
apostles  and  seventy-two  disciples."  After  telling  ns 
somewhat  of  their  prophesyings  and  of  their  doings, 
our  historian  thus  proceeds  :  "  Nicolas  Haussman,  to 
whom  Luther  bore  this  elegant  testimony — '  That 
which  we  teach  he  does ' — was  then  the  pastor  of 
Zwickau.  This  worthy  man  did  not  allow  himself  to 
be  carried  away  by  the  assumptions  of  these  false 
prophets.  He  opposed  the  innovations  which  Stork 
and  his  adherents  were  anxious  to  introduce,  and  the 
two  deacons  of  the  church  acted  in  unison  with  their 

pastor They  formed  regular  organizations, 

wherein  destructive  doctrines  were  acknowledged,  and 
the  minds  of  the  people  became  highly  excited." 
The  civil  authorities  interfering,  these  fanatics  met 
with  an  opposition  which  checked  their  progress,  and 
Nicolas  Stork,  Mark  Thomas,  and  Mark  Stubner, 
started  for  Wittemberg. 

"  They  arrived  in  this  celebrated  town,"  continues 
our  historian,  "  on  the  27th  of  December,  1521.  Stork 
marched  first,  imitating  the  step  and  bearing  of  a  com- 
mon soldier,  while  Thomas  and  Stubner  followed 
behind  him.  The  troubles  which  reigned  in  Wittem- 
berg favored  the  designs  of  these  strangers.  The 
youths  of  the  academy,  and  the  citizens,  at  the  time 
in  a  state  of  much  agitation,  composed,  as  it  were,  a 
soil  prepared  for  the  operations  of  the  new  prophets. 
Hence,  believing  themselves  sure  of  their  support, 
13 


146  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

they  immediately  waited  upon  the  professors  of  the 
university,  in  order  to  obtain  their  concurrence.  '  We 
are,'  said  the  strangers, '  sent  from  God  to  give  instruc- 
tion to  the  people.  We  hold  familiar  conversation 
with  the  Lord,  and  we  are  acquainted  with  the  events 
that  are  to  come  to  pass :  in  a  word,  we  are  apostles 
and  prophets,  and  we  appeal,  in  this  matter,  to  Doc- 
tor Luther.'  This  singular  language  amazed  the  doc- 
tors of  the  university.  '  Who  has  ordained  you  to 
preach?'  enquired  Melancthon  of  Stubner, his  former 
pupil,  whom  he  received  into  his  house:  'Our  Lord 
God.'  '  Have  you  written  any  books  ?  '  '  Our  Lord 
God  has  forbidden  me  to  do  so.'      Melancthon  was 

thunderstruck  ;  equally  amazed  and  alarmed 

Stork,  whose  character  was  restless,  very  soon  quit- 
ted the  town  of  Wittemberg,  but  Stubner  remained 
there.  Animated  with  an  ardent  desire  of  proselytism, 
he  visited  every  district  of  the  town,  speaking  some- 
times to  one  person,  sometimes  to  another  [their  chil- 
dren but  too  closely  adhere  to  the  practice  of  their 
ancestors],  and  several  of  his  hearers  acknowledged 
him  as  a  prophet  sent  from  God.  He  addressed  him- 
self particularly  to  a  Swabian  named  Cellarius,  a  friend 
of  Melancthon,  who  kept  a  school  wherein  he  gave 
instructions  in  letters  to  a  great  number  of  young 
people,  and  who  very  soon  fully  recognized  the  mis- 
sion of  the  new  prophets. 

"Melancthon  became  more  and  more  uncertain  and 
disquieted  in  his  mind.  It  was  not  so  much  the  visions 
of  the  prophets  from  Zwickau  which  disturbed  his 
imagination,  as  the  new  doctrine  they  professed  upon 
the  sacrament  of  baptism."  Mark,  it  was  a  new  doc- 
teine  !     What  it  was  we  shall  see  pretty  soon. 


APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE,  147 

"  Circumstances  became  more  and  more  serious  at 
Wittemberg.  Carlstadt  rejected  several  of  the  doc- 
trines professed  by  the  new  prophets,  and  in  particu- 
lar their  Anabaptlsm"  But  things  grew  worse  and 
worse,  and  the  friends  of  the  Reformation  were  now 
more  afraid  of  these  fanatical  Anabaptists  than  they 
were  of  Rome  itself;  for  the  enemies  of  the  truth 
were  shrewd  enough  to  charge  their  fanatical  doings 
and  their  wild  insubordination  to  Luther  and  his  fol- 
lowers, in  a  word,  to  the  Reformation. 

Meantime  many  communications  reached  Luther  in 
the  Castle  of  Wartburg,  and  he  was  evidently  Avell  con- 
vinced both  as  to  the  nature  and  danger  of  the  work 
that  was  going  on.  "I  throw  myself,"  he  exclaimed, 
"in  the  dust  while  creeping  towards  the  grace  of  the 
Eternal,  and  I  beseech  him  to  allow  his  name  to  be 
still  connected  with  this  work,  and  that  if  something 
impure  has  mingled  in  its  operations,  he  will  remem- 
ber that  I  am  a  weak  and  sinful  man."  Finally,  "  upon 
the  3d  of  March,  he  rose  with  the  resolution  to  quit 
the  Castle  of  Wartburg  forever.  He  bade  adieu  to 
those  ancient  towers  and  dark  forests ;  and  issued 
forth  beyond  those  walls  behind  which  neither  the 
excommunications  of  LeoX.  nor  the  sword  of  Charles 
V.  were  able  to  restrain  him." 

As  Luther  went  to  Worms  so  he  returned  to  Wit- 
temberg, determined  to  enter  though  there  were  in  it 
as  many  devils  as  there  were  tiles  upon  the  housetops  ! 
He  entered!  and  soon  the  announcement,  "Luther  is 
come  ! "  "  Luther  is  come  ! "  flew  through  the  place 
like  flashes  of  lightning,  and  were  felt  like  the  elec- 
tric shock.     All  at  once,  too,  all  the  Anabaptist  pro- 


148  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

phets  were  missing,  Cellarius  only  excepted.  Eight 
sermons  from  Luther  produced  wonderful  effects.  "At 
the  command  of  Luther,"  says  D'Aubigne,  p.  596, 
"  objections  vanished,  tumult  was  appeased,  sedition 
ceased  to  vociferate  her  clamor,  and  the  citizens  of 
Wittemberg resumed  the  tranquil  occupations  of  life." 

"  Nevertheless,  Stubner,  having  been  informed 

that  the  sheep  of  his  flock  had  dispersed,  returned 
speedly  to  his  old  haunts.  Those  who  had  remained 
constant  to  Hhe  celestial  prediction'  surrounded  their 
master,  recounted  to  him  the  substance  of  Luther's 
discourses,  and  impatiently  inquired  of  him  what 
course  they  ought  in  consequence  to  pursue." 

Stubner  and  Cellarius  were,  or  pretended  to  be, 
confident  that  they  could  defend  their  claims  before 
Luther,  and  demanded  an  interview.  Their  request 
was  granted,  and  the  result  was  as  might  be  expected. 
The  following  is  a  brief  sketch  of  the  conference,  as 
recorded  by  D'Aubigne  on  p.  597.  "  Stubner  was 
allowed  to  speak  first.  He  explained  how  he  wished 
to  renew  the  Church  and  to  change  the  world.  Lu- 
ther listened  to  his  harangue  with  great  calmness. 
At  last,  with  great  gravity,  he  replied,  '  Nothing  of 
what  you  have  said  is  founded  upon  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, all  your  affirmations  are  made  up  of  fables.' 
When  these  words  were  uttered,  Cellarius  was  una- 
ble longer  to  restrain  his  fury.  He  commenced  to 
speak ;  he  made  violent  gestures  ;  stamped  with  his 
feet,  and  struck  with  his  hand  the  table  that  stood 
before  him.  He  worked  himself  into  a  passion,  and 
exclaimed  it  was  shameful  to  dare  in  this  manner  to 
speak  to  a  man  of  God.     Then  Luther  quietly  added, 


APOSTOLIC     PRACTICE.  149 

<  St.  Paul  declares  that  the  proofs  of  his  apostleship 
have  appeared  through  the  working  of  wonders,  prove 
yours  by  the  performance  of  miracles.'  '  We  will  do 
so,'  responded  the  prophets.  '  The  God  I  adore,' 
said  Luther,  '  shall  well  know  how  to  hold  your  gods 
in  check.'  Stubner,  who  had  preserved  a  larger  por- 
tion of  self-possession,  fixing  at  this  moment  his  eyes 
upon  the  Reformer,  said,  with  the  air  of  one  inspired, 
'  Martin  Luther,  I  am  about  to  declare  to  you  the 
thoughts  which  are  now  passing  in  your  soul ! . . .  .you 
begin  to  believe  that  my  doctrine  is  true.'  Luther, 
having  for  a  few  moments  remained  silent,  replied, 
'God  reprove  thee,  Satan.'. . .  .At  these  words  all  the 
prophets  became  furious.  '  The  Spirit,  the  Spirit ! ' 
they  bellowed  out.  Luther,  adopting,  with  a  cold 
tone  of  disdain,  the  cutting  familiar  language  peculiar 
to  himself,  said,  c  I  have  hit  your  Spirit  on  the  snout.' 
The  clamor  now  increased  two-fold,  and  Cellarius 
especially  distinguished  himself  by  his  ravings.  He 
became  frantic,  he  shook  and  foamed  at  the  mouth. 
No  one  could  at  this  time  be  heard  in  the  chamber  of 
the  conference.  At  last  the  three  proj:>hets  abandoned 
the  place,  and  on  the  same  day  quitted  the  city  of 
Wittemberg."  Thus  it  was  that  the  novelties  of  the 
fanatical  Anabaptists  were  met  by  the  great  Re- 
former, and  thus  it  was  that  the  new  prophets  were 
routed,  at  least  for  the  present.  But  though  they  have 
fled  from  Wittemberg  they  have  not  abandoned  their 
errors  or  ceased  to  propagate  them.  We  must,  there- 
fore, follow  them  a  little  further. 

On  p.   741,  our  historian  gives    us   the   following 
account  of  their  further  proceedings : 


150  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

"The  fanaticism  of  the  Anabaptists,  extinguished 
in  Germany  at  the  time  of  Luther's  return  to  Wit- 
temberg,  re-appeared  with  increased  strength  in 
Switzerland,  and  it  threatened  to  overthrow  the  edifice 
which  Zwingle,  Haller  and  Ecolampade  had  reared 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  word  of  God.  Thomas 
Munzer,  when  forced  to  leave  Saxony  in  the  year 
1521,  had  retreated  to  the  very  frontiers  of  Switzer- 
land. Conrad  Grebel,  whose  restless  and  ardent  dis- 
position we  have  already  had  occasion  to  describe, 
was  bound  in  ties  of  amity  with  Munzer  as  well  as 
Felix  Mantz,  the  son  of  a  canon,  and  some  other  citi- 
zens of  the  town  of  Zurich;  while  Grebel  had  like- 
wise endeavored  to  gain  the  support  of  Zwingle.  In 
vain  had  this  Swiss  reformer  advanced  in  that  direc- 
tion further  than  Luther ;  for  he  now  beheld  a  party 
eager  to  outstrip  the  progress  he  had  made.  '  Let  us 
form,'  said  Grebel  to  Zwingle,  'a  company  of  true 
believers ;  because  it  is  to  them  alone  the  promise 
belongs ;  and  let  us  establish  a  Church  wherein  sin 
shall  not  be  allowed  to  enter.'  c  It  is  impossible,' 
replied  Zwingle,  'to  form  a  heaven  upon  earth;  and 
Christ  has  taught  us  that  we  must  allow  the  tares  to 
grow  along  with  the  wheat.'  Grebel,  being  frustrated 
in  his  attempts  with  the  reformer,  longed  to  make  an 
appeal  to  the  people.  '  The  whole  community  of 
Zurich,'  said  he,  '  must,  with  sovereign  power,  decide 
upon  the  affairs  of  faith.'  But  Zwingle  feared  the 
influence  these  radical  enthusiasts  might  exercise  upon 
the  minds  of  a  numerous  assembly." 

Three  things  should  be  noticed,  just  here,  in  the 
doings  of  these  fanatics.     First,  while  by  proselyting 


APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE.  151 

unci  in  other  ways  they  are  endeavoring  to  tear  the 
church  to  pieces,  they  nevertheless  cry  out  loudly  for 
union  !  Second,  they  at  the  same  time  declare  that 
the  church  is  all  wrong,  they  only  are  right,  and  are 
going  to  have  a  church  "  wherein  sin  shall  not  be 
allowed  to  enter."  Third,  they  flatter  the  people,  cry 
out  for  their  rights,  and  declare  that  "the  whole  com- 
munity must  with  sovereign  power  decide  upon  the 
affairs  of  faith."  We,  too,  have  seen  this  game 
played :  union  has  been  loudly  called  for,  while  at  the 
same  time  the  work  of  proselyting  has  been  carried 
on,  and  our  Church  represented  as  no  church,  and  our 
baptism  as  no  baptism  ;  and,  as  of  old,  the  people 
have  been  appealed  to  and  flattered!  But  this  game 
did  not  succeed  with  Luther  and  Zwingle ;  the  Ger- 
man and  Swiss  reformers  were  not  to  betaken  in  this 
way;  for  though  the  "  Swiss  reformer  advanced  in 
that  direction  further  than  Luther,"  he  soon  discov- 
ered his  mistake,  and  it  was  well  he  did,  for  the  char- 
acter and  designs  of  the  Anabaptist  prophets  soon 
became  painfully  apparent,  as  the  following  extracts 
from  the  same  history  will  show  : 

"Repulsed  by  Zwingle,  Grebel  turned  his  attention 
elsewhere.  Rubli,  the  ancient  pastor  of  Basil,  Brodt- 
lein,  the  pastor  of  Zollekon,  and  likewise  Herzer, 
received  his  advances  with  eagerness.  They  resolved 
to  form  an  independent  community  in  the  center  of 
the  grand  community,  a  church  in  the  middle  of  the 
church.  A  xew  baptism  was  fixed  upon  as  the 
means  of  gathering  together  their  congregation,  com- 
posed exclusively  of  true  believers.  '  The  baptism 
of  infants,'  said   they,  c  is  a  horrible    abomination,  a 


152  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

manifest  impiety,  invented  by  the  evil  spirit  and  Nich- 
olas II.  the  Pope  of  Rome.'  The  council  of  Zurich, 
alarmed  at  the  prospect  of  these  proceedings,  issued 
an  order  for  the  observance  of  a  public  discussion  ;  and 
the  Anabaptists,  still  refusing  to  forsake  their  errors, 
some  people  of  Zurich  belonging  to  their  sect  were  cast 
into  prison,  while  a  few  strangers  were  banished  from 
the  district.  But  this  persecution  only  served  to  aug- 
ment the  fervor  of  these  enthusiasts." "Some  of 

their  number,  begirt  with  cords  or  willow  wands, 
walked  through  the  streets,  exclaiming,  '  in  a  few  days 
Zurich  shall  be  destroyed.  Woe  to  you,  Zurich  !  woe 
woe  ! '  Many  of  them  gave  vent  to  expressions  of 
blasphemy.  'Baptism,'  said  they,  '  is  the  bathing  of  a 
dog,  there  is  no  more  use  in  baptizing  an  infant  than 
in  baptizing  a  cat.'  Simple  people  were  thrown  into  a 
state  of  commotion  and  dread.  Fourteen  men,  and 
among  their  number  Felix  Mantz,  in  company  with 
seven  women,  were  taken  into  custody,  in  spite  of  the 
intercession  of  Zwingle,  and  condemned  to  live  upon 
bread  and  water  in  the  tower  of  the  heretics.  At 
the  end  of  fifteen  days'  confinement,  they  succeeded 
in  raising  some  planks  during  the  night,  and,  with  the 
assistance  of  each  other,  they  effected  their  escape. 
'An  angel,'  they  said,  'had  opened  the  prison  and 
procured  their  deliverance.'  A  monk  who  had  fled 
from  his  convent,  George  Jacobade  Coire,  surname cl 
Blaurock,  because  he  always  wore,  as  would  appear, 
a  blue  habit,  joined  the  newly-formed  sect,  and  was, 
on  account  of  his  natural  eloquence,  denominated  the 
second  St.  Paul.  This  bold  monk  went  about  from 
place  to  place,  obliging  people  to  receive  the  token  of 


APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE.  153 

his  baptism  by  means  of  his  overheated  appeals.  On 
a  certain  Sunday,  in  Zollekon,  at  the  moment  when 
the  deacon  was  delivering  his  sermon,  the  impetuous 
Anabaptist  interrupted  the  speaker  by  exclaiming  in 
a  voice  of  thunder,  '  It  is  written  my  house  is  a  house 
of  prayer,  but  ye  have  made  it  a  den  of  thieves,'  then 
raising  a  stick  he  carried  in  his  hand,  he  struck  with 
it  on  the  ground  four  violent  blows,  exclaiming,  '  I  am 
the  door,  he  who  will  enter  through  me  shall  find  food. 
I  am  the  good  shepherd,  My  body  I  give  up  to 
prison  ;  my  life  I  give  up  to  the  sword,  to  the  funeral 
pile  or  to  the  wheel.  I  am  the  commencement  of 
baptism  and  of  the  bread  of  the  Lord.'  " 

"  But  Zwingle  offering  a  stern  opposition  to  the  tor- 
rent of  Anabaptismin  Zurich,  St.  Gaul  was  very  soon 
overrun  with  the  same  plague.  Grebel  arrived  in  the 
latter  city,  where  he  was  received  with  acclamations 
by  his  brethren  ;  and  on  Palm  Sunday,  proceeding  in 
company  with  an  immense  number  of  his  adherents 
to  the  banks  of  the  Sitter,  he  administered  baptism 
to  the  whole  multitude. 

"  After  this,  the  spirit  of  fanaticism  displayed  it- 
self in  freaks  of  melancholy  extravagance.  Pretend- 
ing that  our  Lord  exhorts  us  to  become  like  little 
children,  these  unhappy  beings  began  to  jump  about 
in  the  streets,  and  to  clap  their  hands  together,  to 
dance  round  and  round  in  numerous  circles,  to  sit 
down  upon  the  ground,  and  to  roll  one  another  about 
in  the  sand.  Some  of  them  threw  the  New  Testa- 
ment into  the  fire,  saying  :  '  The  letter  kills,  but  the 
Spirit  gives  life;'  while  many,  falling  into  convul- 
sions, pretended  they  had  received  revelations  of  the 
Spirit." 


154  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

But  the  most  melancholy  of  all  that  D'Aubigne  re- 
cords concerning  the  Anabaptists,  is  that  which  he 
records  just  here,  p.  774:  "In  a  lonely  house  situ- 
ated in  the  vicinity  of  St.  Gaul,  upon  the  Mullegg, 
there  lived  an  old  husbandman,  eighty  years  of  age, 
named  John  Shucker,  who  had  five  sons  to  bear  him 
company.  The  whole  of  this  family,  as  well  as  their 
servants,  received  the  ordinance  of  the  new  baptism, 
and  two  of  the  sons,  Thomas  and  Leonard,  particu- 
larly distinguished  themselves  by  their  extreme  fanat- 
icism. On  the  Gth  of  February,  1526,  the  day  being 
Shrove  Tuesday,  they  invited  a  large  number  of  Ana- 
baptists to  meet  in  their  house,  and  the  father  killed 
a  calf  to  provide  for  the  feast.  The  viands  and  the 
wine  sufficed  to  heat  the  imaginations  of  this  numer- 
ous company,  and  they  passed  the  whole  night  in 
conversation,  fantastic  gesticulations,  convulsions, 
visions,  and  revelations. 

"  In  the  morning,  Thomas,  still  excited  by  the  ex- 
cesses of  the  past  night,  and  having  even,  as  it  would 
appear,  lost  the  power  of  his  reason,  took  up  the  blad- 
der of  the  calf  and  put  into  it  the  gall  of  the  beast, 
desiring  thus  to  imitate  the  symbolical  actions  of  the 
prophets  ;  and,  going  up  to  his  brother  Leonard,  he 
said  to  him  in  a  somber  tone,  '  Equally  bitter  is  the 
death  which  you  must  die.'  Then  added,  'Brother 
Leonard,  kneel  down  upon  your  knees.'  Leonard  did 
as  he  was  commanded.  In  a  little  while  he  said, 
1  Brother  Leonard,  arise;'  and  Leonard  again  stood 
upon  his  feet.  The  father,  the  brothers,  and  the  rest 
of  the  Anabaptists,  stared  in  amazement,  wondering 
what  might  be  the  will  of  God.     Very  soon  Thomas 


APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE.  155 

once  more  said,  l  Leonard,  kneel  down  again,'  and  the 
humble  posture  was  resumed.  The  spectators,  alarm- 
ed at  the  gloomy  expression  of  the  unhappy  actor, 
said,  'Ro fleet  upon  what  you  are  about  to  do,  and 
take  care  that  no  evil  happens.'  '  Do  not  fear,'  re- 
plied Thomas,    'the  will  of  the  Father  alone   shall 

be    fulfilled.' At  the    same   moment   he   hastily 

seized  a  sword  and  aiming  a  blow  Avith  all  his 
strength  at  the  body  of  his  kneeling  brother,  like  a 
criminal  before  the  executioner,  he  cut  off  his  head, 
and  exclaimed,  'Now  the  will  of  the  Father  is 
accomplished.'. ...  On  the  16th  of  February,  the 
wretched  fratricide  was  beheaded  by  the  hands  of  the 
hangman,  and  fanaticism  had  been  seen  to  expend  its 
last  effort.  The  eyes  of  all  were  opened  ;  and,  as  an 
ancient  historian  has  said,  '  the  same  blow  served  to 
decapitate  alike  the  body  of  Thomas  Shucker  and 
that  of  Anabaptism  in  St.  Gaul.'  The  sect,  howev- 
er, still  lived  in  Zurich ;  and  on  the  6th  of  November 
of  the  preceding  year,  a  public  dispute  had  there 
taken  place,  in  order  to  give  satisfaction  to  the  Ana- 
baptists, who  continued  to  cry  out,  '  The  innocent  are 
condemned  without  being  heard.'  The  three  follow- 
ing theses  were  proposed  by  Zwingle  and  his  friends 
as  the  subject  of  conference,  and  were  victoriously 
maintained  by  them  in  the  hall  of  the  Council." 
Here  follow  the  theses  : 

"  Children  born  of  faithful  parents  are  the  children 
of  God,  like  those  who  were  born  under  the  Old  Tes- 
tament ;  and,  consequently,  they  can  receive  baptism." 

"  Baptism  is,  under  the  New  Testament,  that  which 
circumcision  was  under  the  Old,  consequently  bap- 


156  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

tism  must  so  now  be  administered  to  children  in  the 
same  way  as  circumcision  wTas  formerly  administered." 

"The  usage  of  baptizing  anew  cannot  be  proved, 
either  by  example,  or  by  passages,  or  by  arguments 
drawn  from  the  Scriptures ;  and  those  who  submit  to 
a  new  baptism  crucify  Jesus  Christ." 

Here  is  a  faithful  account  of  the  origin  of  the  peo- 
ple called  Anabaptists,  and  of  some  of  their  opinions 
and  doings.  John  Matthias,  the  baker,  and  John 
Boccold,  the  tailor,  have  already  been  referred  to  as 
leaders  of  the  Anabaptists  ;  they,  too,  claimed  to  be 
prophets,  and  Boccold  finally  proclaimed  himself 
king  by  Divine  appointment,  and  his  fanatical  follow- 
ers obeyed  him  as  such.  They  took  possession  of 
Munster,  an  imperial  city  of  Westphalia.  I  think  it 
was  here  that  Matthias  was  killed. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  historic  records  here  given, 
that  these  Anabaptists  did  not  even  claim  to  have 
obtained  their  teachings  from  the  Bible ;  indeed  they 
commenced  by  rejecting  the  Bible,  as  may  be  seen  by 
reference  to  the  above  quotations  ;  some  of  them 
actually  threw  their  Bibles  into  the  fire.  They 
claimed  to  have  received  their  teachings  by  direct 
revelation ;  they  said,  "  We  hold  familiar  conversa- 
tion with  the  Lord."  Some  said  they  had  a  commu- 
nication from  the  Angel  Gabriel.  Another,  a  little 
more  honest,  said,  "  I  am  the  commencement  of  bap- 
tism," meaning,  of  course,  baptism  as  he  taught  and 
practiced.  It  will  be  seen,  too,  that  Melancthon 
called  their  Antipedobaptist  doctrine  a  "  new  doc- 
trine." Nor  does  it  appear  that  the  prophets  them- 
selves denied  this.     As  for  Luther,  when  he  heard 


APOSTOLIC    PKACTICE.  157 

the  prophets  state  their  own  views,  he  said,  and  said 
truly,  "All  your  affirmations  are  made  up  of  fables !  " 
It  is  also  worthy  of  remark,  that  in  the  "Theses" 
quoted  above,  the  reformers  take  the  ground  that 
"  Baptism  is  under  the  New  Testament  that  which 
circumcision  was  under  the  Old."  And  with  regard 
to  re-baptizing,  they  not  only  affirm  that  it  has  abso- 
lutely no  countenance  from  the  word  of  God,  but 
they  look  upon  the  act  as  involving  very  serious  con- 
sequences ;  and  they  not  only  censured  the  re-baptiz- 
ers,  but  they  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  "  Those  who 
submit  to  a  new  baptism  crucify  Jesus  Christ !  " 

Such  were  the  men  who  introduced  the  Antipedo- 
baptist  novelty ;  such  the  time  and  mode  of  its  intro- 
duction :  and  such  the  opposition  that  it  met  with 
from  the  great  reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
''But  it  does  not  appear,"  says  Bishop  Tomlin,  "that 
there  was  any  congregation  of  Anabaptists  in  Eng- 
land till  the  year  1640."  And  with  regard  to  their 
commencement  in  this  country,  we  are  informed  that 
it  was  on  this  wise.  In  Rhode  Island,  Bzekiel  Holli- 
man  baptized  Roger  Williams,  then  Roger  turned 
round  and  baptized  Ezekiel  and  ten  others.  Such 
was  their  beginning  in  this  western  world.  Such  is 
the  Church  that  claims  to  be  the  only  Church,  and 
such  the  baptism  that  is  claimed  to  be  the  only  bap- 
tism. 

Now,  we  have  no  sympathy  with  what  is  called  "  the 
doctrine  of  succession,"  no  sympathy  with  the  cry, 
"We  have  Abraham  to  our  father;"  if  people  are 
wrong  ?ioio,  we  censure  them,  whoever  their  father 
may  have  been ;  and  if  they  are  right  now,  we  ask 


158  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

no  more.  But  when  the  Anabaptists  vainly,  and 
loudly,  talk  about  their  antiquity  and  ancestry,  and 
claim  to  be  the  Church,  the  ouly  Church,  and  repre- 
sent all  others  as  having  gone  out  of  the  way,  it  is 
highly  proper,  we  think,  to  say  to  them,  "  Look  to  the 
rock  whence  ye  are  hewn,  and  to  the  hole  of  the  pit 
whence  ye  are  digged."  So  far  as  the  Anabaptists  are 
right  now  we  are  with  them,  and  bid  them  God  speed ; 
but  they  must  not  expect  us  to  endorse  the  inventions 
of  Munzer,  Grebel,  Stork,  Stubner,  Boccold,  and  other 
fanatics,  as  being  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  his 
apostles.  So  far  as  they  hold  the  truth  in  common 
with  evangelical  Christians,  we  are  with  them,  and 
give  them  due  credit,  but  when  they  reject  what  we 
know  to  be  of  Divine  appointment,  and  force  upon  us 
what  we  know  to  be  an  unscriptural  novelty,  we  may 
not  submit,  nor  hold  our  peace  either!  And  when* 
they  are  so  bigoted  and  exclusive  that  they  will  not 
sit  down  with  God's  people  at  God's  table,  or  allow 
any  of  God's  people  to  sit  down  with  them  at  their 
table,  let  them  not  cry  out  for  union.  Only  a  few 
days  since,  I  was  told  the  following :  A  lady,  who 
was  a  member  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  feeling  that  she 
was  dying,  sent  for  her  pastor  to  administer  to  her 
the  sacrament  of  the  sujmer,  feeling,  like  her  Master, 
that  she  should  not  again  drink  of  this  fruit  of  the 
vine  until  that  day  when  she  should  drink  it  new  in 
her  father's  kingdom.  The  minister  hastens  to  the 
dying  room,  the  table  is  spread,  and  a  little  group  of 
friends  gather  around  to  partake,  with  the  dying 
woman,  of  the  sacred  emblems  of  Christ's  dying 
love.       The    husband    of    the    dying    woman   is   in 


APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE.  159 

the  next  room ;  he  is  invited  to  come  and  receive 
the  holy  sacrament  with  his  wife  before  she  dies; 
but  no,  he  will  not :  Why  ?  Simply  because  he 
belongs  to  the  Baptist  Church,  and  his  wife  belongs 
to  the  M.  E.  Church !  As  we  said  before,  so  we  say 
again,  when  such  people  cry  out  for  union,  which  they 
do,  under  given  circumstances,  we  must  doubt  their 
sincerity,  we  cannot  do  otherwise !  And  we  verily 
believe  that,  till  they  are  ashmed  of,  and  abandon 
this  unchristian  practice,  they  should  be  left  to  them- 
selves !  And  let  it  be  remembered,  that  their  claims 
to  superiority  are  based  upon  the  novelties  that  they 
received  from  the  German  fanatics  of  the  sixteenth 
century !  Once  more,  let  them  take  the  Gospel, 
which  they  hold,  and  preach  it  to  sinners,  and  save 
all  they  can,  and  we  will,  so  far,  bid  them  God  speed. 
But  let  them  not  come  into  our  churches  and  dwell- 
ings to  pervert  and  proselyte  those  whom  God  has 
placed  under  our  care,  and  who,  we  know,  have 
received  Scripture  baptism!  Let  them  not  do  this 
thing ! 

And  now,  ye  people  of  Israel,  Christian  people  of 
every  name,  we  say  to  you  in  conclusion,  Consecrate 
your  children  to  God  in  holy  baptism  ;  remember  "the 
promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children  ;  "  and  Jesus 
says  to  you,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me, 
and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God."  Bring,  then,  your  children  to  Jesus,  who  is  as 
ready  now,  and  as  able,  to  bless  them,  as  he  was  when 
he  first  uttered  those  blessed  words.  Bring  them,  I 
say,  to  this  blessed  Savior,  who  in  the  days  of  his 
flesh,  "took  the  little  children  up  into  his  arms,  put 


160  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

his  hands  upon  them  and  blessed  them."  He  claims 
them  as  the  purchase  of  his  blood,  and  "the  free  gift" 
has  already  "  come  upon  "  them  "  unto  justification  of 
life."  Bring  them,  I  say  once  more,  to  him  who  died 
for  them,  and  who  commands  you  to  do  so ;  and  as 
you  come,  say : 

"  We  bring  them,  Lord,  in  thankful  hands, 

And  yield  them  up  to  Thee, 
Joyful  that  we  ourselves  are  Thine, 

Thine  let  our  offspring  be." 

sAnd  when  you  baptize  "  with  water,"  see  that  you  . 
baptize  as  He  does,   who  baptizes  "with  the  Holy 
Ghost ; "  and  you  knoio  He  baptizes  by  pouring,  shed- 
ding, falling  ;  not  by  plunging  1 


KEPLY   TO   A  KEVIEW  OF  THE 
FIEST  EDITION". 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE    MODE. 

The  Reviewer  contradicts  himself  by  professing  to  believe  that 
this  work  will  incline  many  to  embrace  the  Anabaptist  faith. 
after  he  had  told  us  that  Mr.  A.  was  "  very  much  interested, 
edified  and  comforted,"  by  reading  it,  so  much  so  that  it  required 
a  mighty  effort  on  the  part  of  the  reviewer  to  convert  him  back 
again  ! — He  again  argues  on  the  assumption  that  bapto  always 
means  to  dip,  plunge  or  immerse  ;  and  yet  afterward  denies  that 
Baptists  ever  assume  this — It  is  shown  that  neither  dip,  plunge, 
dive,  immerse,  pour  or  sprinkle,  is  the  synonym  of  baptize — He 
asserts  that  bapto  is  never  used  for  Christian  Baptism,  though 
Baptist  writers  say  this  word  always  means  to  dip,  plunge  or 
immerse — The  word  ebaphe  used  by  the  Seventy  in  Daniel,  is 
again  taken  up — What  I  say  about  plunging,  and  plunging  naked 
is  merely  evaded — It  is  shown,  however,  that  the  more  intelli- 
gent of  the  Anabaptists  admit  the  difficulty  involved  in  the 
assumption  that  the  baptisms  recorded  in  the  New  Testament 
were  by  plunging  ;  as  an  instance  Robert  Hall  is  quoted — It  is 
admitted  to  be  only  probable  that  New  Testament  baptisms  were 
by  plunging — Quotations  from  New  Translation  and  criticisms 
thereon. 

The  eight  articles  here  noticed,  were  published  in 

the  Michigan  Christian  Herald',  seven  of  them  over 

the  signature  of  "  O.  S.,"  and  the  other,  viz.,  that  of 

December  7,  1865,  without  anv  signature.     The  first 

1-4 


162 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


four  are  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue,  and  the  whole 
eight  profess  to  be  a  review  of,  and  a  reply  to,  the 
preceding  work  on  baptism. 

In  the  dialogue,  Mr.  B.  professes  to  have  had  a 
visit  from  Mr.  A.,  who  says  he  has  "just  been  read- 
ing Rev.  John  Levin gton's  work  on  Scripture  Bap- 
tism," and  that  he  has  "  been  very  much  interested, 
edified  and  comforted."  Mr.  B.  tells  Mr.  A.  that  he 
"had  just  finished  its  reading"  as  Mr.  A.  came  in. 
Both  having  read  the  new  work  they  at  once  enter 
into  a  free  conversation  with  regard  to  it,  and,  more- 
over, Mr.  A.  soon  becomes  the  willing  and  delighted 
pupil  of  Mr.  B.  The  result  is,  of  course,  that  Mr.  B. 
soon  re-converts  Mr.  A. ,  and  so  thorough  is  the  work 
that  the  young  convert  requests  Mr.  B.  to  return  the 
book  to  Mr.  Levington  and  cause  the  latter  to  return 
the  price  thereof,  he  being  now  convinced  that  Mr. 
L.  and  his  book  are  alike  bad.  This  Mr.  B.  refuses 
to  do,  choosing  rather  to  circulate  it,  being  convinced 
that  by  so  doing  he  will  gain  many  converts  to  the 
Baptist  faith.  But  Mr.  "O.  S."  and  his  pupil  A.  shall 
speak  for  themselves  : 

"  A.  I  suppose  now,  you  will  send  Mr.  L's  book 
back  to  its  author,  that  you  may  have  your  money 
refunded,  as  he  has  promised,  to  those  who  did  not 
like  his  work  ? 

"B.  Send  it  back?  Of  course  not;  it  is  too 
precious !  I  want  to  put  Mr.  Levington's  book, 
endorsed  by  Dr.  Duffield,  into  the  hands  of  converts, 
that  they  may  see  how  Methodists  and  Presbyterians 
love  the  Baptists ;  how  kindly  they  speak  !  Now,  as 
Mr.  L.  stigmatizes  the  Baptists  as  great  proselyters, 


KEPLT    TO    BAPTIST   REVIEW.  1G3 

I  want  to  make  use  of  this  new  agency  to  aid  me  in 
this  precious  work  ;  his  booh  loill  be  the  very  thing  ! 

"Already  the  leaven  has  begun  to  work;  and  you 
know  some  of  his  own  members  feel  so  disgusted 
with  his  production,  that  they  will  not  purchase  it, 
nor  have  it  in  their  houses.  We  can  read  in  this 
which  way  the  influence  is  tending.  He  will  need  the 
seal  of  another  Doctor  of  Divinity  to  make  honorable, 
high-minded  men  among  the  Methodists  love  and 
patronize  the  Bible  Baptism  of  Rev.  Mr.  Levington." 

According  to  this  showing  Mr.  A.  was  converted, 
yea,  and  "  very  much  interested,  edified  and  com- 
forted "  by  reading  my  book,  but  Mr.  B.  or  Mr.  O.  S. 
re-converted  him,  and,  as  might  be  expected,  suc- 
ceeded in  giving  his  proselyte  a  very  unfavorable 
idea,  both  of  the  book  and  of  its  author.  It  will  be 
seen,  however,  that  Mr.  B's  profession  and  his 
memory  are  alike  unreliable ;  for,  according  to  his 
professed  belief,  my  work  is  well  calculated  to  make 
converts  to  the  Baptist  faith,  for  this  jmrpose  he  says 
my  "book  will  be  the  very  thing,"  hence,  he  refuses 
to  let  it  go,  saying,  "  it  is  too  precious,"  and  adds, 
"Already  the  leaven  has  begun  to  work :  and  you 
know  some  of  his  own  members  feel  so  disgusted 
with  his  production,  that  they  will  not  purchase  it, 
nor  have  it  in  their  houses."  But  the  memory  of  Mr. 
B.,  or  his  judgment,  must  be  greatly  at  fault,  for  he 
told  us  at  the  very  outset,  that  Mr.  A.,  by  reading 
my  book  was  converted  to  my  views,  yea,  and  "very 
much  interested,  edified  and  comforted,"  so  much  so 
that  it  required  a  mighty  effort  on  the  part  of  Mr.  O. 
S.,  (so  we  will  call  him  in  future,)  to  re-convert  him, 


164  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

which  effort  he  has  given  us  in  a  long  series  of  long 
articles.  Now,  any  one  can  see,  that  if  the  memory 
or  the  judgment  of  Mr.  O.  S.  had  not  been  strangely 
at  fault  he  would  not  have  given  us  the  above  pro- 
fessed belief  in  connection  with  the  account  of  Mr.  A's 
conversion  resulting  from  the  reading  of  my  book. 
Moreover,  if  my  book  be  such  as  Mr.  0.  S.  represents 
it  to  be,  how  came  it  to  pass  that  such  marvelous  and 
happy  effects  were  produced  in  the  mind  of  Mr.  A. 
by  simply  reading  it?  Really,  Mr.  O.  S.,  you  have 
laid  us  under  the  necessity  of  concluding  that  either 
yourself,  or  your  pupil,  or  both,  must  be  very  defect- 
ive either  in  memory,  or  in  judgment,  or  in  both,  or 
in  something  else !  But,  instead  of  circulating  this 
work  for  the  good  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  we 
strongly  suspect  that  Mr.  O.  S.  would  have  much 
more  faith  in  the  method  adopted  by  those  Baptist 
Elders  who  told  their  people  not  to  read  my  book ; 
and  no  marvel,  for  one  Church,  at  least,  had  lost  a 
very  important  member  in  consequence  of  my  book 
having  been  circulated  there.  In  this  instance  you 
see,  Mr.  O.  S.,  that  the  leaven  was  working  the  other 
way  !  You  say,  your  brother  Mr.  A.  said,  before  you 
took  him  in  hand,  "  I  consider  the  arguments  unan- 
swerable," just  so  this  man  said,  and  lest  other  Bap- 
tists should  say  the  same  thing,  their  Elders  told  them 
not  to  read  the  book.  And  if  Mr.  O.  S.  will  write  a 
long  series  of  long  articles  for  the  salvation  of  each 
one  who  says  so,  he  will  write  more  than  any  man 
ever  did  !  And  it  would  be  equally  impracticable  for 
him  to  hold  a  dialogue  with  each,  especially  of  such 
length  as  that  now  before  us. 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST   KEYIEW.  165 

As  a  farther  evidence  that  Mr.  A.  is  thoroughly 
converted,  and  very  shrewd  withal,  he  is  represented 
as  saying,  "  I  suppose  now,  you  will  send  Mr.  L's 
book  back  to  its  author,  that  you  may  have  your 
money  refunded,  as  he  has  promised  to  those  who  do 
not  like  his  work?"  No,  the  author  of  that  work 
never  made  any  such  promise,  he  knows  too  well  that 
there  is  a  certain  class  who  will  dislike  a  book,  or 
argument,  just  in  proportion  to  the  conclusiveness  and 
force  with  which  it  refutes  their  beloved  error.  It 
was  the  conclusiveness  and  force  of  Stephen's  argu- 
ment that  caused  his  enemies  to  stop  their  ears,  gnash 
upon  him  with  their  teeth,  cry  out  with  a  loud  voice, 
and  stone  him!  !  Upon  similar  classes  of  men  simi- 
lar arguments  still  have  a  similar  effect.  -  With  these 
views  it  is  not  likely  that  I  would  promise  to  return 
the  price  of  the  book  to  all  who  do  not  like  it.  Not 
so  ;  the  following  is  what  I  promised  :  "  If  any  per- 
son, after  carefully  reading  this  little  work,  will  hon- 
estly say  to  me,  I  still  believe  that  the  views  objected 
to  are  the  right  views,  I  here  promise  that  I  will 
return  to  such  the  price  of  the  work  and  take  it  back 
cheerfully."     I  am  still  good  for  that  promise. 

We  will  now  notice  some  of  the  teachings  of  Mr. 
O.  S.,  by  which  he  professes  to  have  produced  such 
a  marvelous  revolution  in  the  mind  of  his  delighted 
pupil,  Mr.  A.;  but  we  must  not  be  expected  to  notice 
the  small  talk  and  little  stories  which  abound  in  these 
productions.  Take  the  following  as  an  instance ;  it  is 
the  first  that  comes  to  hand,  and  is  in  the  first  dia- 
logue, no  v  before  me  :  "  B.  You  put  me  in  mind  of 
a  sister  in  Ohio,  who,  when  asked  how  she  wanted  to 


16G  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

be  baptized,  replied,  I  do  not  want  to  be  baptized  at 
all,  I  want  to  be  sprinkled."  Now  it  is  quite  certain, 
that  men  of  judgment  who  have  a  good  cause,  and 
desire  themselves  and  their  cause  to  be  respected, 
will  never  seek  help  from  silly  stories  such  as  the 
above. 

Mr.  0.  S.  complains  loudly  of  the  spirit  in  which 
my  book  is  written,  and  says  "  he  felt  that  the  Ana- 
baptists must  be  put  down."  Not  finding  such  words 
in  my  book,  and  being  determined  to  make  out  a 
grave  charge  somehow,  he  quotes  my  feelings  in- 
stead of  my  book,  saying,  "  he  feels  that  the  Ana- 
baptists must  be  put  down."  To  convince  his  readers 
that  I  write  in  a  bad  spirit,  he  gives  the  following  in 
proof  of  the  assumed  fact,  "  And  we  verily  believe, 
that,  till  they  are  ashamed  of,  and  abandon  their 
unchristian  practice,  they  should  be  left  to  them- 
selves." If  the  reader  will  turn  to  p.  142,  he  will  see 
that  Mr.  O.  S.  has  substituted  the  word  "their"  for 
my  word  this,  simply,  it  seems,  because  he  did  not 
wish  to  tell  his  readers  the  practice  to  which  I 
objected  in  this  connection.  The  practice  of  which 
I  was  speaking,  was  simply  their  refusing  to  commune 
with  any  of  God's  people  outside  of  their  own  denomi- 
nation, their  practice  of  treating  all  who  do  not 
belong  to  their  denomination  as  though  they  were 
heathen.  As  an  instance  of  their  unchristian  prac- 
tice in  this  particular,  I  stated  that  a  certain  lady 
belonging  to  the  M.  E.  Church,  feeling  that  she  was 
dying,  sent  for  her  pastor  to  administer  to  her  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Supper,  feeling,  like  her  Master, 
that  she  should  not  again  drink  of  this  fruit  of  the 


REPLY   TO   BAPTIST    REVIEW.  167 

vine  until  that  day  when  she  should  drink  it  new  in 
her  Father's  kingdom.  Tift  pastor  and  a  few  friends 
assemble  to  commune  with  this  dying  Christian ;  hei* 
husband  is  invited  to  commune  with  his  dying  wife, 
but  he  refuses,  why  ?  Simply  because  she  belonged 
to  the  M.  E.  Church  and  he  to  the  Baptist  Church ! 
Just  here  it  is  that  we  added  the  following  words  : 
"As  we  said  before,  so  we  say  again,  when  such  peo- 
ple cry  out  for  union,  which  they  do  under  certain 
circumstances,  we  must  doubt  their  sincerity,  we  can- 
not do  otherwise  !  And  we  verily  believe  that,  till 
they  are  ashamed  of,  and  abandon  this  unchristian 
practice,  they  should  be  left  to  themselves.  And  let 
it  be  remembered,  that  their  claims  to  superiority  are 
based  upon  the  novelties  that  they  received  from  the 
German  fanatics  of  the  sixteenth  century."  Now  the 
reader  can  decide  who  has  manifested  a  bad  spirit,  I 
who  simply  stated  a  fact,  and  my  honest  judgment 
with  regard  to  that  fact,  or  Mr.  O.  S.,  who  has 
represented  me  as  saying  and  feeling  what  I  never 
said  or  felt.  Meantime  I  repeat  it,  as  my  honest  con- 
viction, that  till  the  Baptists  are  ashamed  of,  and 
abandon  this  unchristian  practice,  they  should  be 
left  to  themselves ;  and  while  they  treat  us  as  they 
do,  that  is,  as  being  no  part  of  the  Church  of  God. 
I  hold  that  both  honesty  and  consistency  demand  that 
they  should  accept  of  their  own  terms  without  com- 
plaint. We  have  not  made  the  terms,  on  the  con- 
trary, we  complain  of  them  as  being  unchristian. 
And  I  as  honestly  believe,  that  this  course,  if  adopted 
by  all  the  sister  denominations,  would  tend  to  correct  if 
not   lead   to  the    speedy  abandonment  of  this   truly 


168  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

unchristian  practice.  As  I  have  caused  the  word 
this  to  be  printed  in  capitals,  it  is  hoped  that  the 
word  their  will  not  again  be  substituted  for  iti  It  is 
also  hoped  that  we  will  not  again  be  called  hard 
names  for  calling  this  an  unchristian  practice,  espec- 
ially as  Mr.  O.  S.  insists  that  things  should  be  "called 
by  their  right  names,  however  ridiculous  they  may 
sound."  Query — Does  it  ever  sound  ridiculous  to 
give  things  their  j:>roper  names  ?  Our  impression  is 
that  what  is  proper  is  never  ridiculous  !  But  for  a 
man  professing  to  be  a  Christian  to  refuse  to  receive 
the  sacrament  of  the  Supper  at  the  same  table  with 
his  dying  Christian  wife,  simply  because  she  had  not 
been  plunged  under  water  by  one  of  his  party,  must  be 
considered  much  worse  than  what  is  merely  ridiculous. 
To  say  that  such  practice  and  teaching  are  unchris- 
tian, is  to  use  the  mildest  language  that  the  case  will 
admit  of.  Indeed  our  reviewer  is  evidently  conscious 
of  this ;  hence  when  he  would  represent  me  as  writ- 
ing in  an  unchristian  spirit,  he  suppresses  what  we 
said,  and  represents  us  as  saying  something  very 
different,  as  we  have  shown  above. 

But  Mr.  0.  S.  now  hastens  to  the  old  Baptist 
refuge,  viz.:  the  assumption  that  the  Greek  word 
baptizo,  always  expresses  their  mode  of  administer- 
ing Christian  baptism,  viz.:  a  plunge  into  and  under 
water,  neither  more  nor  less.  It  is  in  support  of  this 
assumption  that  he  gives  us  the  following  long  list  of 
questions  and  answers  : — 

"  B.  Very  well,  then,  let  us  call  things  by  their 
right  names.  I  believe  you  have  read  Greek  a  little 
— about  the  same  as  Mr.  L. 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST   REVIEW.  169 

"  A.  I  have. 

"B.  Well,  then,  please  tell  me  what  word  the 
Greeks  would  use  if  they  wished  to  have  an  object 
dipped  or  immersed. 

"A.  They  would  use  the  word  bapto,  or  baptizo, 
these  are  the  more  common.  - 

"B.  Very  well;  now  tell  me  what  were  used  for 
sprinkle,  pour,  or,  cleansing  and  purifying  without 
respect  to  mode. 

"A.  For  sprinkle  they  used  raino  or  rantizo.  For 
pour,  cheo,  and  for  cleansing  and  purifying  in  general 
they  used  katharizo  and  agnizo. 

"B.  Now  please  tell  me  which  of  these  words  Christ 
invariably  used  for  baptizing  in  the  Christian  ordi- 
nance. 

"A.  He  uses  baptizo  the  verb,  and  baptisma  the 
noun. 

"B.  Are  these  words  ever — in  a  single  instance — 
translated  to  sprinkle  in  the  Bible. 

"  A.  Never,  that  I  have  ever  seen  or  heard  of. 

"B.  Are  they  ever  translated  to  pour  f 

"  A.  Never. 

"B.  Are  the  words  raino  and  rantizo  or  cheo  ever 
translated  dip,  plunge  or  immerse  ?  I  mean  is  there 
one,  even  o:srE  instance  on  record  ? 

"  A.  Not  an  instance  that  I  have  ever  heard  of. 

"  B.  Then  when  Christ  commanded  us  to  baptize, 
he  did  not  use  rantize  nor  cheize,  but  a  word  which 
signifies  to  dip,  plunge  or  immerse." 

Mark  the  conclusion  of  the  dialogue,  and  the  end 
for  which  it  was  employed  ; — "  A  word  which  signi- 
fies to  dip,  plunge  or  immerse."  Here  it  is  assumed, 
15 


170  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

as  usual,  that  this  word  has  the  meaning  or  meanings 
here  specified,  and  no  other,  and  that  it  is  used  for 
the  purpose  of  designating  the  mode  of  administering 
Christian  baptism.  It  means  dip,  plunge  or  immerse, 
neither  more  nor  less."  "It  will  be  seen  that  upon  this 
assumption  the  entire  argument  rests,  and,  of  course, 
the  same  assumption  extends  to  the  prepositions  ;  yet, 
strange  to  say,  in  this  very  article,  and  that  soon  after 
assuming  as  above,  Mr.  O.  S.  denies  the  charge.  On 
page  35,  I  say,  "And  yet  the  advocates  of  plunging, 
as  the  only  mode  of  baptism,  build  their  arguments 
upon  the  assumption  that  hi,  els  and  eh,  always  mean 
in,  into  and  out  of.  It  is  true  they  admit,  at  least 
those  of  them  who  are  scholars,  that  these  words  have 
a  great  variety  of  meanings ;  but  it  is  equally  true 
that  the  arguments  which  they  deduce  from  the  nar- 
ratives of  John's  and  Philip's  baptism  are  all  built 
upon  this  assumption.  Indeed,  they  admit  that  the 
word  baptizo  has  a  great  variety  of  meanings,  yet, 
strange  as  it  may  appear,  their  arguments  in  favor  of 
plunging,  are,  for  the  most  part,  built  upon  the 
assumption  that  it  always  means  to  immerse,  to  dip, 
to  plunge,  neither  more  nor  less  !"  We  have  seen 
that  it  is  upon  this  assumption  that  Mr.  O.  S.  grounds 
his  argument  in  the  quotations  given  above,  and  yet 
immediately  after,  he  denies  the  whole,  and  admits 
all  we  claim  in  the  following  words : 

"  B.  I  will  simply  say  that  no  Baptist  author  has 
assumed  what  Mr.  L.  here  asserts.  But  common 
sense  must  have  something  to  do — or  ought  to  have 
— in  the  interpretation  of  the  prepositions  in  Greek, 
the  same  as  in  English." 


CRITICISMS   ON   NEW   BAPTIST    TRANSLATION.        171 

I  thank  you,  sir,  for  this  concession ;  now, in  future, 
whether  plunging  is,  or  is  not,  the  right  mode,  I  hope 
you  will  not  rest  your  defense  of  it  upon  the  assump- 
tion which  you  have  now  given  up.  Only  let  common 
sense  have  something  to  do  with  the  interpretation  of 
the  word  baptizo,  as  woli  as  with  the  prepositions  con- 
nected therewith,  and  this  controversy  will  soon  be  at 
an  end.  Only  let  common  sense  do  its  legitimate 
work  here,  and  you  will  no  longer  represent  God  as 
plunging  men  and  women  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  in 
fire,  which  you  must  do  if  to  baptize  means  to  plunge, 
neither  more  nor  less,  for  God  certainly  baptized,  and 
still  baptizes  men  and  women,  but  he  does  not  plunge 
them !  Only  let  common  sense  have  something  to  do 
with  the  intei^retation  of  these  words,  and  we  wrill 
no  longer  hear  of  all  Israel  being  plunged  into  Moses, 
and  all  Christians  plunged  into  Christ;  all  of  which 
is  certainly  true,  if  the  Bible  is  true,  and  if  these 
words  mean  to  plunge  into,  neither  more  nor  less  ! 
But  the  fact  is,  time  would  fail  to  specify  all  the 
absurdities  involved  in  the  assumption  here  objected 
to  ;  therefore  we  will  only  add,  let  common  sense 
have  something  to  do  with  the  interpretation  of  these 
words,  and  the  New  Baptist  Bible  will  soon  drop  into 
oblivion,  or  only  be  remembered  with  regret  and 
shame.  O  that  I  could  but  hope  that  you,  sir,  and 
all  Baptists,  would  abide  by  the  concession  which  you 
have  now  made,  but,  alas,  I  cannot  even  hope  that 
you  will  do  so.     I  fear  it  would  be  a  vain  hope. 

Just  here  it  may  be  well  to  give  a  few  quotations 
from  the  New  Testament  lately  published  by  Ininier- 
sionists : 


172  CHEISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

Matt.  iii.  11;  "I  indeed  immerse  you  in  water  unto 
repentance  ;  but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier 
than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear,  he  shall 
immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire."  Mark  i.  4, 
5,  "John  came  immersing  in  the  wilderness,  and 
preaching  the  immersion  of  repentance  unto  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.  And  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the 
land  of  Judea,  and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and  were  im- 
mersed by  him  in  the  river  Jordan  confessing  their 
sins."  Luke  iii.  3,  "  And  he  came  into  all  the  country 
about  Jordan,  preaching  the  immersion  of  repentance 
unto  the  remission  of  sins."  Verse  16,  "He  shall 
immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  in  fire."  Acts  i. 
5,  "For  John  truly  immersed  in  water;  but  ye  shall 
be  immersed  in  the  Holy  Spirit  not  many  days  hence." 
Acts  ii.  38.  "Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent, 
and  be  each  of  you  immersed  upon  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  unto  the  remission  of  sins."  Acts  xi. 
16.  Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how 
that  he  said,  John  indeed  immersed  in  water,  but  ye 
shall  be  immersed  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  Acts  xix.  3. 
"And  he  said  unto  them,  unto  what,  then,  were  ye 
immersed?    And  they  said,  unto  John's  immersion." 

It  would  be  folly  to  attempt  to  criticise  the  above 
and  similar ;  yea,  worse  passages  in  the  new  transla- 
tion. The  following  remarks,  however,  we  think 
deserve  attention.  Though  immersionists  build  their 
arguments  in  favor  of  immersion,  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  els  always  means  into,  they  do  not  so  trans- 
late that  word  in  their  new  translation  ;  for  instance, 
in  Acts  xix.  3,  eis  occurs  twice,  and  twice  they  trans- 
late it  unto  ;  because  they  did  not  like  to  represent  the 


CRITICISMS   ON    NEW  BAPTIST  TRANSLATION.       173 

parties  as  saying,  we  wrERE  immersed  into  John's 
immersion  !  And  if  we  substitute  the  word  plunge, 
which  they  give  us  as  the  synonym  of  immerse,  and 
which  alone  properly  expresses  their  practice,  then 
the  reading  will  be,  We  were  plunged  into  Johrts 
plunging!  This  is  only  one  of  the  many  instances 
in  which  they  do  not  render  the  Greek  prepositions, 
en  and  eis,  in  and  into.  Yet  these  same  persons  bit- 
terly complain  of  others  because  they  do  not  always 
translate  en  and  eis  in  and  into  !  I  give  also  the  fol- 
lowing instance  furnished  by  a  friend.  "  They  charge 
ns  with  a  wicked  tampering  with  the  Word  of  God, 
because  we  do  not  always  translate  the  Greek  word 
bapto  by  the  word  immerse.  But  turning  to  the 
'new  version,'  Mark  x.  38,  39,  the  word  occurring 
six  times  is  four  times  translated  endure,  and  twice 
immerse.''''  Whether  these  may  be  considered 
instances  of  inconsistency,  or  dishonesty,  the  reader 
may  decide  !  One  thing  is  certain,  this  people  should 
now  be  called  Immersers,  not  Baptists,  seeing  they 
plead  for  immersion  only,  and  have  abandoned  the 
word  baptize  altogether ;  so  much  so,  that  the  word 
baptize  never  once  occurs  in  their  new  translation  of 
the  New  Testament.  So  that  according  to  their  own 
showing  they  have  no  baptism  at  all,  but  immersion 
only!  Moreover,  they  call  John  the  Baptist  "John, 
the  Immerser,"  hence  they  should  certainly  take  the 
same  name  to  themselves. 

Having  again  looked  into  the  Anabaptist  New 
Translation,  I  beg  to  present  to  the  reader  the  follow- 
ing additional  quotations  and  remarks : 

Luke  xvi.  20,  they  translate  "  dip  ;  "  Matt.  xxvi.  23, 


17-1  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

"  clipped;  "  Mark  xiv.  20,  "clips,"  and  Rev.  xix.  13, 
"  clipped."  Here  they  acknowledge  that  the  common 
translation  is  correct,  except  that  they  attempt  to 
improve  it  by  substituting  "  clips  "  for  dippeth.  They 
also  acknowledge,  by  this  translation,  that  baptize, 
dip,  plunge  and  immerse,  are  not  synonymous  terms, 
though  they  have  long  asserted,  and  assumed  that  they 
are.  Mark  vii.  4,  they  translate,  "  And  coming  from 
the  market  except  they  immerse  themselves,  they  do 
not  eat."  It  will  be  remembered  that  these  trans- 
lators say,  immerse  means  to  baptize,  that  is,  as  they 
assert,  to  plunge  under  water ;  now  we  simply  ask, 
do  these  men  believe  that  all  the  Jews  always  baptized 
themselves,  that  is  plunged  themselves  under  water, 
before  eating,  when  they  came  from  market?  Does 
the  reader  believe  this  ?  Does  any  Jew  now  living 
believe  or  practice  this  ?  was  it,  or  is  it,  always  pos- 
sible for  them  to  do  this?  Heb.  vi.  1,  2  is  translated, 
"  Not  laying  again  the  foundation  of  repentance  from 
dead  works,  and  of  faith  toward  God,  of  the  doctrine 
cf  immersions,  and  of  laying  on  of  hands."  In  Matt, 
xx.  22,  23,  the  word  /forr™  in  different  forms  occurs 
six  times.  But  in  the  New  Translation  it  does  not 
occur  at  all,  being  left  out  altogether.  I  am  aware 
that  in  some  copies  of  the  original  the  word  does  not 
occur  in  the  text  of  Matt. ;  but,  as  Watson  observes, 
on  the  place,  "  It  is  found  in  the  greater  number  of 
MSS.,  and  not  only  coincides  with  the  context,  but  is 
found  in  the  parallel  place,  Mark  x.  38,  39,"  about 
which  there  is  no  dispute.  In  this  text  the  word  occurs 
in  the  original,  as  in  the  common  translation,  six  times, 
but  in  the  new  translation,  or,  more  properly,  the  neio 


CRITICISMS  ON  NEW  BAPTIST  TRANSLATION.       175 

p>  rversion,  it  is  excluded  altogether,  and  the  word 
immerse  introduced  only  twice.  And,  what  makes 
the  matter  worse,  the  word  "  endure  "  is  introduced 
four  times,  though  that  word  does  not  occur  once  in 
the  original.  The  fact  is,  as  I  said  formerly,  it  is 
extremely  difficult  to  get  the  word  plunge,  or  immerse, 
into  this  passage  at  all,  and  its  introduction  at  the 
best  is  offensive,  and  here  intolerable.  But  being 
determined  to  introduce  it,  they  have  resorted  to  this 
desperate  method,  and  have  perpetrated  this  daring  and 
sacrilegious  fraud,  for  it  is  alike  daring  and  fraudulent ! 

I  will  here  introduce  the  passage  as  it  stands  in  the 
new  translation:  "Are  ye  able  to  drink  the  cup  that 
I  drink,  or  to  endure  the  immersion  which  I  endure  ? 
And  they  said  to  him,  We  are  able.  And  Jesus  said 
to  them :  Ye  shall  indeed  drink  the  cup  that  I  drink, 
and  endure  the  immersion  which  I  endure." 

Luke  xii.  50,  in  the  common  translation,  reads,  "But 
I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,  and  how  am  I 
straitened  till  it  be  accomplished."  In  the  new  trans- 
lation this  passage  reads  thus:  "But  I  have  an 
immersion  to  undergo;  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it 
be  accomplished  !  "  Here  the  same  fraud  is  perpe- 
trated. For  (SanTLGfia,  which  is  the  word  in  the 
original,  they  give  us  the  word  "  immersion,"  but 
(3(nrTto6o  they  leave  out  altogether,  and  introduce 
the  word  "  undergo,"  which  is  not  in  the 'text  at  all. 
The  reason  for  this  is  the  same  as  in  the  former  case; 
they  did  not  like  to  render  the  passage,  I  have  an 
immersion  to  he  immersed  with!  and  they  must  do 
this,  or  submit  to  the  common  translation,  which  would 
be  fatal  to  their  cause,  or  do  as  they  have  done,  which 


176  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

in  our  judgment  is  still  more  fatal.  Acts  x.  37,  they 
translate,  "  After  the  immersion  that  John  preached. " 
Acts  xiii.  24,  they  translate,  "  John  having  first 
preached,  before  his  entrance,  the  immersion  of  repent- 
ance to  all  the  people  of  Israel."  In  1  Cor.  xii.  1 3, 
our  sapient  translators  give  us  the  following,  "  For  by 
one  Spirit  we  are  all  immersed  into  one  body."  'Rom. 
vi.  3,  4,  they  translate  thus,  "  Know  ye  not  that  all 
we  who  were  immersed  into  Jesus  Christ  were  im- 
mersed into  his  death  ?  We  were  buried  therefore 
with  him  by  the  immersion  into  his  death."  "Im- 
mersed into  Jesus  Christ."  "  By  the  immersion  into 
his  death."  Here  we  will  not  venture  any  criticism. 
We  will  only  say,  "  Let  him  that  readeth  understand," 
for  I  am  sure  I  do  not !  Gal.  iii.  21,  reads,  "  For  all 
ye  who  were  immersed  into  Christ,  did  put  on  Christ." 
John  i.  33,  reads,  "  The  same  is  he  who  immerses 
in  the  Holy  Spirit."  All  this  is  equally  inexplicable  ! 
It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Anabaptists  rest 
their  arguments  in  favor  of  plunging  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  etg  always  means  into,  and  they  object  to 
our  giving  that  preposition  any  other  meaning.  But 
they  do  not  abide  by  that  rule  in  their  new  translation. 
In  Acts  xix.  3f  they  twice  translate  unto,  just  as  it  is 
in  the  common  translation.  Thus,  after  all  their  ado 
about  baptizo  and  the  prepositions,  they  are  forced  to 
come  over  to  our  position.  Why  ?  Just  because,  as  I 
have  shown,  the  view  they  contend  for  implies  absurd- 
ity and  impossibility.  Hence,  when  they  come  to 
apply  their  rule  they  shrink  from  the  consequences. 
Had  they  translated  etc,  into,  in  this  verse,  then  it 
would  have  read,    even  if  immerse  were  allowed, 


CRITICISMS  ON  NEW  BAPTIST  TRANSLATION.      177 

"  Into  what  then  were  ye  immersed  ?  And  they  said, 
into  John's  immersion  !  "  They  shrink  from  this,  and 
translate  ecg  unto,  not  into.  For  the  same  reason  they 
so  translate  Mark  i.  4.  In  their  new  translation  this 
verse  reads  thus,  "  John  came  immersing  in  the  wil- 
derness, and  preaching  the  immersion  of  repentance 
unto  remission  of  sins."  It  is  true  this  is  bad  enough, 
but  preaching  the  immersion  of  repentance  into  the 
remission  of  sms,  would  be  worse  ;  and  it  would  be 
still  worse  to  read,  preaching  the  plunging  of  repent- 
ance into  the  remission  of  sins  !  They  evidently  see, 
they  must  see,  that  their  position  is  not  tenable.  And 
it  is  highly  to  their  discredit  that  they  do  not  ac- 
knowledge the  fact,  for  they  are  convinced  of  the  fact. 
This  is  clearly  evinced  by  the  quotations  which  we 
have  given  from  their  new  translation,  and  by  many 
other  passages  which  might  be  quoted  from  .that  mar- 
velous production.  But  the  worst  of  all  is,  their 
palming  upon  an  unsuspecting  people,  a  perverted 
copy  of  the  word  of  life  :  and  the  guilt  is  aggravated 
by  the  fact,  that  the  fraud  cannot  be  detected  by  the 
masses  of  the  people,  because  they  cannot  appeal  to 
the  original ;  this  is  a  fact  which  the  translators  well 
understand  !  And  this  fact  renders  it  the  more  neces- 
sary that  we  should  expose  the  fraud,  and  this  we 
have  attempted  to  do  with  all  honesty,  for  God  knows 
we  believe  what  we  say.  It  is  possible,  however, 
that  we  may  mistake  in  some  minor  particulars ;  but, 
if  any  one  w^ill  point  out  such  mistake,  we  will 
acknowledge  it,  and  correct  it,  in  the  next  edition, 

We  call  special  attention  to  the  fact,  that,  as  Ana- 
baptists themselves  translate  «?,  unto,  and  that  in  con- 


178  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

nection  with  John's  baptism,  they  thereby  give  up  the 
assumption  to  which  we  have  objected,  and  upon 
which  their  principal  arguments  rest.  They  can  no 
longer  say  "  John  went  down  into"  or  "  Philip  went 
down  into  ;  for  they  cannot  show  why  eig  should  not 
be  rendered  unto  in  this  part  of  the  narrative,  as  well 
as  in  the  other  part.  And  if  we  read,  as  even  their 
own  translation  authorizes,  They  went  down  to,  or 
unto,  the  water  ;  and  came  up  from  the  water  ,  then 
these  narratives  do  not  afford  so  much  as  a  presump- 
tion that  there  was  any  plunging  under  the  water  ! 
Such  is  the  authority  to  which  these  teachers  are  con- 
stantly appealing  in  favor  of  their  unscriptural,  or, 
rather  antiscriptural  position.  They  will  assert  with 
all  the  appearance  of  confidence  that  their  practice  is 
so  clearly  taught  in  the  New  Testament,  that  teach- 
ing is  altogether  unnecessary:  even  the  children  have 
only  to  read  for  themselves,  and  they  will  at  once 
believe  just  as  the  Anabaptists  do! 

As  a  specimen  of  this  confident,  imposing  style,  we 
give  the  following  from  an  article  in  the  Michigan 
Christian  Herald  of  August  1,  1866,  the  present 
month,  under  this  heading, 

"  WHAT    CHURCH   SHALL    I    JOIN  ? 

"  It  is  strange,  indeed,  that  any  person  professing 
to  be  converted  and  to  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  holding  in  his  hand  the  New  Testament,  which  is 
the  only  perfect  and  all-sufficient  guide  in  all  questions 
of  religious  duty  given  by  the  Head  of  the  Church, 
to  direct  His  disciples  in  things  he  requires  them  to 
do  as  disciples,  should  falter,  for  a  moment,  as  to  the 
true  method  of  settling  this  inquiry.     Would  Jesus 


CRITICISMS    OX   NEW"  BAPTIST   TRANSLATION.       179 

make  the  way  of  salvation  so  plain  and  yet  not  make 
the  subsequent  path  of  duty  equally  plain  to  his  fol- 
lowers? Did  the  question,  what  church  shall  we 
join?  ever  occur  to  the  mind  of  a  young  convert  in 
Apostolic  times  as  it  does  now  to  many  ?  Not  at  all. 
This  is  evident,  because  there  teas  but  one  church  for 
him  to  join.  Jesus  said  to  his  ministers,  'teach 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded yon.'  In  obedience  to  these  instructions  all 
Converts  were  taught  to  put  on  Christ  by  being  bu- 
ried with  him  in  baptism;  and  with  such  pastors  and 
teachers  as  the  church  then  had,  no  person  who  did 
not  obey,  could  have  been  received  a  member." 

Again.  "From  these  premises  it  is  a  strictly  logi- 
cal deduction  that  all  who  obeyed  gospel  instruction 
(and  all  other  is  worthless),  were  immersed  ;  and  con- 
sequently that  there  were  none  but  immersed — or,  as 
they  are  now  called — Baptist  churches  for  disciples 
to  join.  There  was  none  but  the  one  ISTew  Testament 
church — built  on  the  same  foundation — professing  the 
same  faith — organized  on  the  same  principles — com- 
posed of  members  voluntarily,  individually,  and  openly 
consecrated  to  Jesus  Christ  by  the  same  act  of  bap- 
tismal burial." 

After  giving  us  much  more  of  this  sort  of  talk,  to- 
gether with  the  solemn  caution,  "  See  that  thou  make 
all  things  according  to  the  pattern  showed  to  thee  in 
the  Mount,"  we  are  furnished,  as  usual,  with  a  little 
story.  The  subject  of  the  story  is  said  to  be  the  daugh- 
ter of  "  a  Methodist  minister."  The  following  ex- 
tract is  in  harmony  with  the  other  parts  of  the  article, 


180  CHEISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

and  tends  to  show  still  more   clearly,  what  it  is  that 
the  author  of  the  article  aims  at. 

Being  converted  in  a  certain  revival,  "  she  began 
to  search  the  Word  of  God.  Her  father,  a  Methodist 
minister,  furnished  her  with  other  books — favoring, 
of  course,  his  own  views — till  she  requested  him  to 
get  her  no  more  ;  she  preferred  to  seek  light  from  the 
New  Testament.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add  that 
she  did  join  the  Baptist  Church." 

Finally,  this  champion  for  plunging,  closes  his  arti- 
cle thus  :  "With  a  child-like,  teachable  spirit,  go  to 
the  Word  of  God,  resolve  to  seek  for  light  till  you 
see  the  example  and  command  of  Christ  bright  and 
clear;  then  obey  with  a  cheerful  heart,"  that  is,  of 
course,  go  down  to  the  river  and  be  plunged !  And 
for  so  doing,  it  is  here  pretended  that  "  the  example 
and  command  of  Christ,"  are  "bright  and  clear." 

What  confidence  is  to  be  placed  in  such  high- 
sounding  words  will  be  seen  at  once  by  any  one  who 
will  read  in  connection  therewith  the  extracts  given 
above,  from  the  New  Translation.  And,  they  will 
see,  too,  how  "bright  and  clear"  are  the  teachings 
and  arguments  of  Anabaptists  on  this  subject;  while 
the  extracts  here  given  from  a  newspaper  article, 
may  suffice  to  show  their  style  when  they  write  or 
talk  on  this  subject. 

But,  bad  as  is  the  style  of  teaching,  the  thing  taught 
is  still  worse.  Notice  the  following  assertions 
"All  who  obeyed  gospel  instruction  were  immersed." 

All  were  "  openly  consecrated  to  Jesus  Christ  by 
the  same  act  of  baptismal  burial."  By  "  openly,"  is 
meant,  I  suppose,  publicly.     I  wonder  if  the  jailer 


CRITICISMS  OX  NEW  BAPTIST  TRANSLATION.       1S1 

was  publicly  buried  under  water,  both  "  he  and  all 
his,"  in  the  jail  at  Philippi,  sometime  after  midnight! 
Paul,  too,  was  baptized  in  the  house  of  Judas.  Here 
is  the  record  ;  "  And  immediately  there  fell  from  his 
eyes  as  it  had  been  scales  ;  and  he  received  sight 
forthwith,  and  arose,  and  was  baptized."  In  vain  do 
we  look  for  the  modern  Anabaptist  display  in  connec- 
tion with  the  baptism  of  the  jailer  at  Philippi,  or  in 
connection  with  the  baptism  of  Paul  in  the  house  of 
Judas  in  Damascus  !  But  we  proceed  to  notice  one 
or  two  more  of  these  bold  assertions.  In  primitive 
times,  we  are  told, "  there  were  none  but  immersed,  or, 
as  they  are  now  called,  Baptist  Churches  for  disciples 
to  join."  It  is  here  acknowledged  that  the  phrase 
Baptist  church  is  of  modern  date,  while  it  seems  to 
be  claimed  that  the  title,  "  Immersed  Church,"  is  the 
ancient  and  proper  one  !  Once  more.  In  those  days 
"  All  converts  were  taught  to  put  on  Christ  by  being 
buried  with  him  in  baptism."  Now,  I  simply  ask, 
what  idea  must  they  have  of  "  putting  on  Christ," 
who  teach,  or  are  taught,  that  this  is  done  by  a  sud- 
den plunge  of  the  body  under  water  ?  On  the 
words,  "  But  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus,"  Rom.  xiii. 
14,  Mr.  Wesley  has  the  following  beautiful  note: 
"  Herein  is  contained  the  whole  of  our  salvation.  It 
is  a  strong  and  beautiful  expression  for  the  most  inti- 
mate union  with  him,  and  being  clothed  with  all 
the  graces  which  were  in  him.  The  apostle  does 
not  say,  Put  on  purity  and  sobriety,  peacefulness  and 
benevolence,  but  he  says  all  this  and  a  thousand 
times  more  at  once,  in  saying  'Put  on  Christ.' "  And 
we  might  add,  he  does  not  say,  "  Put  on  Christ  "  by 


182  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

being  plunged,  or  buried  in  water ;  no,  the  soul  can- 
not be  clothed  with  the  above  graces  by  plunging  the 
body  under  water ;  if  it  could,  methinks  I  would 
plunge  and  advocate  plunging  eighteen  hours  in  the 
day  ;  and  I  would  vie  with  the  most  zealous  of  all  the 
Anabaptists.  I  would  have  all  the  Methodists,  and 
Presbyterians,  and  Episcopalians,  and  Roman  Catho- 
lics, yea,  and  the  Baptists  too,  and  all  others  under 
water  with  the  least  possible  delay !  Oh  how  gladly 
would  I  plunge  under  the  waters  of  Lake  Erie  all  the 
people  of  this  city,  and  then,  seeing  them  all  clothed 
Avith  the  graces  of  the  blessed  Jesus,  instead  of  say- 
ing, "  Now  let  thy  servant  depart  in  peace,  for  mine 
eyes  have  seen  thy  salvation,"  I  would  go  to  Detroit 
and  other  places,  and  continue  the  blessed  work  as 
long  as  I  should  be  able  to  put  a  human  being  under 
water  !  But,  alas  !  the  pleasing  dream  vanishes  in 
the  presence  of  fact,  and  before  the  word  of  God, 
which  sayeth,  "  Ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus;"  "By  grace  are  ye  saved 
through  faith  ;"  "  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  his  son, 
cleanseth  us  from  all  sin  ;  "  for  it  is  not  possible  that 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away 
sins,"  and  it  is  equally  impossible  that  water  should 
do  this,  or  impart  the  graces  above  specified,  and, 
remember,  he  who  has  them  not,  has  not  put  on 
Christ,  however  often  he  may  have  been  plunged 
under  water ! 

The  fact  is,  with  regard  to  the  sacred  rite  of  bap- 
tism, Anabaptists  seem  to  lose  sight  of  the  thing,  and 
place  all  the  stress  upon  the  act  or  mode  of  adminis- 
tration ;  their  whole  mind,  when  treating  on  this  sub- 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST     REVIEW.  183 

ject,  seems  to  be  occupied  with  the  single  idea  of  a 
sudden  plunge,  or  duck,  in  water ;  and,  by  the  way, 
this  last  word  seems  to  express  their  mode  still  more 
accurately  than  does  the  word  plunge,  for  they  merely 
give  the  head  and  upper  part  of  the  body  a  sudden 
duck  under  the  water,  and  this  they  call  putting  on 
Christ!  With  them  this  single  act  seems  to  be  the 
grand  panacea!  while  the  thing,  the  unspeakably 
glorious  thing,  expressed  by  the  word  baptism,  seems 
to  be  lost  sight  of.  Oh  how  common  is  it  for  poor  car- 
nal man  to  substitute  something  merely  outward,  for 
the  work  and  fruit  of  the  Spirit ! 

But  you  gravely  ask  your  pupil  to  tell  you  "  what 
word  the  Greeks  would  use  if  they  wished  to  have 
an  object  dipped  or  immersed."  Now,  my  dear  sir, 
as  you  have  been  doing  all  the  asking  and  answering 
hitherto,  please  allow  me  to  do  a  little  in  this  way. 
Suppose  a  Baptist  wished  to  have  an  object  dipped 
what  would  he  say  ?  Methinks  he  would  say  dip  it, 
especially  if  he  would  alloio  common  sense  to  have 
something  to  do  in  the  matter!  Or,  suppose  your 
wife,  if  you  have  one,  desired  some  of  her  domestics 
to  dip  some  candles,  what  would  she  say  ?  I  really 
think  the  good  lady  would  not  say  baptize  some  can- 
dles !  I  rather  think  she  would  say  dip  them  !  Or, 
suppose  it  were  ironing-day,  and  the  good  lady  wish- 
ed to  have  some  cloths  sprinkled  preparatory  to  their 
being  ironed,  what  would  she  say  ?  Would  she  say, 
Jane,  baptize  those  cloths  ?  It  strikes  me  very  forci- 
bly that  she  would  say,  Jane,  sprinkle  those  cloths. 
She  certainly  would  if  she  allowed  common  sense  to 
have  any  thing  to  do  in  such  matters ;  and  as  ladies 
are  in  the    habit    of    making  good  use  of  common 


184  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

sense  in  such  matters,  she  would,  doubtlessly,  so  ex- 
press her  desire ;  for  it  is  in  religious  matters,  rather 
than  in  domestic  matters,  that  people  .are  in  the  habit 
of  throwing  away  their  common  sense ! 

As  it  now  seems  to  be  my  turn  to  ask  questions,  I 
will  improve  the  opportunity  by  asking  a  few  more* 
Suppose  you,  sir,  were  asking  God  to  baptize  your 
soul  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  I  trust  you  fre- 
quently do,  what  word  would  you  use?  Would  you 
say,  O  Lord,  plunge  my  soul  with  the  Holy  Ghost? 
or  would  you  say,  dip  my  soul  with  the  Holy  Ghost? 
Or,  suppose  you  were  praying  with  and  for  the  con- 
gregation, what  word  would  you  use  ?  Would  you 
say,  O  Lord,  plunge,  or  dip  this  congregation  in  the 
Holy  Ghost  ?  No,  my  friend ;  fond  as  you  are  of 
these  words,  you  would  not  use  them  in  this  connec- 
tion, nor  would  any  one.  Neither  would  those  who 
baptize  by  sprinkling,  or  by  pouring,  say,  O  Lord, 
sprinkle  my  soul  in  the  Holy  Ghost ;  pour  my  soul 
with  the  Holy  Ghost;  pour  my  soul  in  the  Holy 
Ghost !  Such  language  is  so  shocking,  that  probably 
no  man,  however  ignorant  and  fanatical,  would,  or 
ever  did,  use  it ;  and  why?  I  answer,  because  neither 
dip,  plunge,  immerse,  pour  or  sprinkle,  is  the  syno- 
nym of  baptize,  hence  the  absurdity  of  using  either 
of  them  as  such.  In  proof  of  this  position,  if  further 
proof  is  needed,  it  is  only  necessary  to  observe  that  you 
may  pour  a  thousand  times,  sprinkle  five  thousand 
times,  dip  ten  thousand  times,  and  plunge  one 
million  times,  and  yet  not  baptize  at  all !  But 
this  could  not  be  said  with  truth  or  propriety,  if 
either  of  these  words  were  the  synonym  of  the  word 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  185 

baptize:  for  then,  to  say  as  above,  would  be  to  say, 
you  may  pour  and  yet  not  pour,  sprinkle  and  not 
sprinkle,  dip  and  not  dip,  plunge  and  not  plunge ! 
This,  then,  is  the  first  grand  error  into  which  the 
Anabaptists  have  fallen,  and  that  which  has  caused 
so  many  other  mistakes.  Another  mistake  into  which 
they  have  fallen,  is  their  constantly  assuming  that  the 
word  baptizo,  or  baptisma,  is  given  simply  to  express 
the  mode  of  administering  that  sacrament  or  rite. 
But  this  is  not  the  fact,  for  it  is  used  by  our  blessed 
Lord  to  express  the  thing  rather  than  the  mode  / 
hence  neither  sprinkle  nor  plunge  is  a  proper  substi- 
tute for  it,  for  these  words  necessarily  express  the 
mode  of  an  act,  but  do  not  necessarily,  or  in  them- 
selves,  express  baptism,  at  all.  These  two  mistakes 
have  involved  this  subject  in  more  mist  and  fog  than 
all  other  mistakes  put  together.  Perhaps  we  would 
be  safe  in  saying  that  they  are  the  source  of  all  the 
other  mistakes.  Had  not  Mr.  O.  S.  fallen  into  these 
mistakes,  he  never  would  have  given  us  the  above 
list  of  silly  questions,  after  which  he  asks,  "  Now 
will  you  call  things  by  their  proper  names  after  this  ?" 
Would  that  you  might  do  so,  then  you  would  no  more 
substitute  the  word  plunge  for  baptize  y  nor  would 
we  any  more  hear  of  plunging  or  dipping  in  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost,  if  things  were  called  by  their  proper 
names !  Let  it  be  remembered,  then,  that  the  word 
which  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  employ  to 
designate  this  rite  or  sacrament,  includes  several  very 
weighty  and  important  ideas;  viz.,  a  sign,  a  seal,  an 
oath  a  covenant,  loash,  cleanse,  purify,  consecrate. 
I  think  all  these  ideas  are  included  in,  and  expressed 
16 


186  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

by  the  word  baptizo,  when  there  is  a  proper  subject. 
But  this  is  not  true  of  any  of  the  other  words,  and  it 
is  highly  probable  that  we  have  no  word  that  we 
could  with  propriety  substitute  for  this  word  !  We 
have  some  words  that  will  express  some  of  these 
ideas,  but  no  one  that  will  express  them  all.  As  to 
the  words  dip  and  plunge,  they  express  none  of  them 
at  all,  no,  not  one! 

Referring  to  1st  Corinthians  x.  2,  Bishop  Pearce, 
as  quoted  by  Parkhurst,  says,  "  They  were  baptized 
into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea  /  i.  e.,  into  that 
covenant,  and  into  obedience  to  those  laws  which 
Moses  delivered  to  them  from  God  ;  so  pairTtfrodac  ecg 
Xptorov  is  rendered  to  be  baptized  into  Christ,  and 
signifies  to  be  baptized  into  the  profession  of  Christ's 
laws  and  doctrine."  Parkhurst  on  the  word  baptizo, 
when  referring  to  the  words  dip,  plunge,  immerse, 
says,  "  But  in  the  New  Testament  it  occurs  not 
strictly  in  this  sense.1' 

But  it  is  useless  to  quote  further,  as  we  have  said  so 
much  on  this  subject  formerly.  Moreover,  Carson 
says,  "  All  the  lexicons  and  commentators  are  against 
me."  This  is  true,  and  this  is  enough.  But  the 
worst  of  all  is,  the  plain  text  of  Scripture  is  against 
iiim,  as  we  have  shown  formerly. 

In  the  work  which  Mr.  O.  S.  has  under  review,  I 
had  spoken  in  strong  language  against  the  practice  of 
re-baptizing.  And  long  ago,  Dr.  A.  Clarke  had  said, 
"  In  my  view,  it  is  an  awful  thing  to  iterate  bap- 
tism" To  all  this  our  reviewer  replies  thus,  "  You 
perceive,  then,  that  we  are  not  Anabaptists,  because 
we  do  not  re-baptize  ;  we  merely  baptize  such  as  have 


REPLY   TO    BAPTIST   REVIEW.  187 

been  rantized."  This  needs  no  comment.  I  merely 
give  the  quotation,  at  all  may  know  the  fact ;  viz., 
that  all  outside  the  Anabaptist  church  are  classed 
with  unbaptized  heathen.  It  is  here  declared  that 
those  millions  who  have  been  consecrated  to  the  ad- 
orable Trinity  in  holy  baptism,  have  never  been  bap- 
tized at  all !  And  in  this  way  he  claims  that  his 
denomination  are  not  Anabaptists  ;  no,  they  only 
baptize  those  who  had  been  sprinkled !  Is  not  this 
profane  ?  But  where  is  the  common  sense  that  he 
said  should  have  something  to  do  here  ?  Alas  !  it 
does  not  seem  to  have  either  part  or  lot  in  the  matter; 
for  if  common  sense  had  been  allowed  to  speak, 
methinks  it  would  have  told  him  that  it  was  equally 
easy  for  his  neighbor  to  say  to  him,  "  Your  people 
are  not  baptized  at  all;  they  are  only  plunged /" 
But  all  this  is  the  result  of  falling  into  the  mistakes 
which  we  have  exposed  above. 

We  give  the  following  long  quotation  from  our  re- 
viewer, that  he  may  have  the  full  benefit  of  it,  and 
that  others  may  have  a  chance  to  judge  of  it,  and 
ascertain  its  meaning,  if  they  can,  for  we  confess 
ourselves  somewhat  puzzled  by  it : 

"  There  is  one  thing  more  I  wish  to  ask  just  here, 
is  the  word  bapto  ever  used  for  the  Christian  ordinance 
of  baptism  ?" 

"  A.     ISTo,  it  is  not. 

"  B.  What,  then,  can  we  think  of  the  honesty  of 
Mr.  L.,  when  he  tells  us  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
4  baptized  with  the  dew  of  heaven,'  when  a  word  is 
used,  which  is  never  used  for  the  Christian  ordinance  ? 
Did  not  Mr.  L.  know  this  ?     If  he  did  not,  he  ought 


188  CTIRTSTIAN     BAPTISM. 

not  to  have  written  thus  ;  but  if  he  did,  as  he  would 
have  his  readers  understand,  then  there  is  evidence  of 
intention  to  mislead  his  readers  who  do  not  under- 
stand Greek." 

I  cannot  see  why  our  reviewer  should  be  at  a  loss 
to  know  why  I  quoted  the  text  in  Daniel,  from  the 
Septuagint ;  I  specify  the  end  for  which  I  quote  it, 
viz.,  to  show  that  the  seventy  did  not  understand  the 
word  bapto  in  the  sense  of  plunge,  for  they  use  it,  or 
its  derivative,  epa<f>7?,  to  express  the  act  of  the  dew 
falling  from  heaven  upon  the  king  ;  and  St.  Paul  uses 
it  for  a  similar  purpose,  viz.,  to  express  the  act  of  the 
spray,  and  of  the  deio,  falling  upon  the  Israelites 
when  "  they  passed  through  the  sea  on  dry  land," 
and  when  they  were  "  under  the  cloud."  He  also 
used  it  to  express  those  acts  of  the  Jews,  when  they 
sprinkled  with  water  and  with  blood,  or  otherwise 
applied  these  liquids,  which  acts  he  calls  divers  bap- 
tisms. The  common  translation  has  it,  "  divers 
washings,"  but  the  original  Greek  reads,  dtafopoic 
paKTifffioLs,  divers  baptisms. 

Mr.  O.  S.  says,  "  When  they  wished  to  express  the 
use  of  water  in  any  way,  they  had  a  word  expressive 
exactly  of  what  they  wished  to  do."  Grant  it,  what 
then  ?  Paul  knew  all  these  words,  yet  he  neither 
uses  pavnCu  nor  x£<*,  nor  any  other  word  that  ex- 
-presses  a  specific  mode.  Why?  Simply  because  he 
is  speaking  of  "divers  baptisms,"  and,  consequently, 
uses  the  word  ^arrriafiic  as  that  which  comprehended 
all  the  modes  of  applying  the  elements  specified, 
which  is  not  true  of  any  one  of  the  other  words,  be- 
cause each  one  expresses  one   specific  mode,  and  no 


REPLY   TO   BAPTIST   REVIEW.  189 

more,  and  therefore  could  lfot  be  used  in  this  connec- 
tion, where  several  modes  and  elements  were  intended. 
After  speaking  of  these  divers  baptisms,  the  Apostle 
gives  several  instances,  and  each  is  by  sprinkling, 
both  with  blood  and  with  water.  See  Hebrews  ix. 
19-21.  It  deserves  special  remark,  too,  that  this 
baptism  by  sprinkling  blood  and  water,  was  under- 
stood to  be  a  sign  of  cleansing  and  a  sealing  of  the 
covenant,  vihich  Christian  baptism  confessedly  is. 

As  my  reviewer  asserts  that  I  must  either  be  igno- 
rant or  dishonest,  simply  because  I  quote,  as  applica- 
ble to  the  subject  in  hand,  the  text  in  Daniel,  I  may 
be  permitted  to  say  that  I  am  in  good  company ;  for 
the  same  text  has  been  quoted,  for  the  same  purpose, 
by  many  whose  honesty  and  ability  will  bear  the  an- 
gry attacks  of  Anabaptists  about  as  well  as  the  rocks 
by  the  sea-shore  bear  the  surges  of  the  angry  billows. 

Out  of  many  such  authors,  I  will  select  but  one, 
viz.,  Taylor,  Editor  of  Calmet's  Dictionary,  and  au- 
thor of  that  learned  work  on  baptism,  from  which  I 
have  already  quoted.     He  says  : 

"  The  baptismhy  the  Holy  Ghost  was  conferred  by 
the  descending  of  the  baptismal  element.  Are  there 
any  instances  of  the  use  of  the  word  baptism  in  ref- 
erence to  water,  which  instances  also  mark  the 
descending  of  the  baptismal  element  ?  If  there  are, 
then  water  baptism  must  be  taken  in  a  sense  strictly 
coincident  with  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  or  else 
we  render  one  part  of  the  Word  of  God  repugnant 
to  the  other.  The  first  instance  is  afforded  by  the 
Greek  translators  of  Daniel,  who  inform  us  that 
Nebuchadnezzar,  in   his  deranged   stale,    should  be 


190  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

baptized  with  the  dew  of  heaven — Daniel  iv.  23,  25, 
33 ;  and  this  is  repeated,  to  inform  us  that  he  really 
was  baptized  with  the  dew  of  heaven,  verse  21,  af- 
fording so  many  unquestionable  applications  of  the 
word  baptize,  to  the  descent  of  the  dew  of  heaven 
upon  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  vapors  raised  into  the 
atmosphere  during  the  heat  of  the  day,  descended, 
shed  themselves,  fell  doion,  during  the  cokler  hours 
of  the  evening  and  night,  on  the  person  of  the  un- 
happy Babylonian  monarch.  By  these,  say  the  sev- 
enty, he  was  baptized/  A  clearer  instance  of  descent 
there  cannot  be."     Facts  and  evidences,  pp.  114,  115. 

This  is  only  one  of  the  instances  which  this  learned 
author  gives  to  show  that  the  descent  of  the  element 
upon  the  body,  as  well  as  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  upon  the  soul,  is  called  baptism.  It  will  now 
be  seen  that  this  learned  author,  according  to  the 
showing  of  Mr.  O.  S.,  is  quite  as  ignorant,  or  quite 
as  dishonest  as  I  am  !  Be  this  as  it  may,  however, 
we  will  give  one  more  quotation  from  this  same  au- 
thor, and  it  will  probably  prove  still  more  annoying 
than  that  already  given.     Here  it  is  : 

"  The  word  baptize  is  never  used  in  the  seventy  in 
the  sense  of  plunging  ;  nor  is  it  so  understood  by 
our  translators,  except  in  one  instance,  Job  ix.  31,  for 
the  sake  of  a  strength  of  expression." 

But  why  does  my  reviewer  charge  me  with  igno- 
rance or  dishonesty,  merely  because,  like  others,  I 
quoted  the  above  text  from  the  Septuagint  ?  The 
reason  he  gives  for  so  doing  is  simply  this,  because  in 
that  text  "  a  word  is  used  which  is  never  used  for  the 


REPLY   TO   BAPTIST   EEVIEW.  191 

Christian  ordinance."     See  the  whole    quotation  as 
given  above. 

The  reader  will  observe,  that  the  word  concerning 
which  he  makes  this  assertion  is  bapto.  Now,  if  the 
reader  will  please  to  look  again  at  the  long  list  of 
questions  which  we  previously  furnished  from  this 
same  article,  he  will  find  these  words :  "  Please  tell 
me  what  word  the  Greeks  would  use  if  they  wished 
to  have  an  object  dipped  or  immersed  ?  They  would 
use  the  word  bapto,  or  baptizo  ;  these  are  the  more 
common."  At  one  time,  we  are  told  these  words 
"  always  mean  to  dip,  plunge  or  immerse,  neither 
more  nor  less,"  now  we  are  told  that  this  use  or 
meaning  is  "the  more  common."  And  while  our 
reviewer  tells  us  that  the  Greeks  would  use  the  words 
bapto  or  baptizo,  when  they  wished  to  have  an  object 
dipped  or  immersed,  at  least  that  these  words  were 
more  commonly  used  for  this  purpose,  he  at  the  same 
time  tells  us  that  this  same  word  bapto  "  is  never 
used  for  the  Christian  ordinance."  What !  a  word 
that  always  means  to  dip  or  immerse,  is  never  used 
for  the  Christian  ordinance  !  Is  not  this  conceding 
more  than  we  claim  ?  unless  he  means  to  say  that 
Christ  and  his  apostles  do  not  use  it  in  the  sense  of 
immerse  or  plunge-,  if  so,  we  agree  with  him.  I  am 
aware  that  the  verb  bapto  is  not  found  in  those  texts 
in  the  New  Testament  where  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism is  spoken  of,  but  is  it  not  the  root  from  which 
we  have  all  the  words  used  to  designate  this  ordin- 
ance ?  Is  it  not  the  root  from  which  the  Seventy 
derived  the  word  which  they  employ  to  designate  or 
express  the  action  of  the  dew  falling  upon  Nebuchad- 


192  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM, 

nezzar  ?  Moreover,  Baptists,  it  is  well  known,  give  us 
the  following  as  their  own  position,  and  as  the  basis 
upon  which  they  rest  almost  all  their  arguments  in 
favor  of  plunging,  viz.,  "Baptism,  from  the  Greek 
word  baptizo,  of  bapto,  I  dip  or  plunge  ; "  "  to  dip, 
plunge,  or  immerse."  The  amount  is  this,  baptizo  is 
from  bapto,  and  as  the  latter  means  dip,  plunge,  or 
immerse,  so  does  the  former.  But  does  not  ebaphe, 
the  word  used  by  the  Seventy,  come  from  the  same 
root  that  baptizo  is  derived  from  ?  And,  consequently, 
does  it  not  come  under  the  same  law  of  interpretation  ? 
Is  it  not  a  mere  quibble  to  say  that  this  "  word  is 
never  used  in  the  Christian  ordinance,"  simply  because 
it  is  a  different  inflection  of  the  same  verb?  And  all 
this  because  the  meaning  that  the  Seventy  give  to  it  is 
fatal  to  the  cause  of  plunging !  Thus  it  is  that  the 
advocates  of  plunging  take  and  give,  assert  and  deny 
the  same  thing,  just  as  that  thing  seems  to  favor  or 
go  against  them  ! 

Though  we  have  been  at  this  trouble  to  correct  the 
above  strange  assertion,  as  well  as  the  uncalled  for 
reflections,  which,  doubtless,  would  pass  for  argu- 
ment with  some,  it  is  not  because  our  views  need  the 
help  which  that  text  in  the  Septuagint  affords  :  no, 
that  kind  of  argument  is  furnished  abundantly  else- 
where ;  for  instance,  the  single  fact  that  the  various 
applications  of  different  elements  under  the  Jewish 
economy,  are  by  the  apostle  Paul  all  called  Baptisms, 
is  of  itself  sufficiently  conclusive  of  all  we  claim. 
And  when  to  this  we  add  the  all-important  fact, 
that  God  baptized  by  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit, 
and  that  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  parties  is, 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  193 

by  the  Divine  Administrator  himself,  called  baptism", 
our  argument  becomes  overwhelmingly  conclusive  ; 
especially  when  it  is  considered  that,  to  meet  all  this, 
nothing  is  brought  forward  but  inference  and  con- 
jecture, without  one  clear  text,  or  one  well  authenti- 
cated fact !  Moreover,  let  it  be  well  observed,  that 
though  many  clear  texts,  and  well  authenticated  facts 
could  be  produced  in  favor  of  baptism  by  plunging, 
that  would  not  prove  that  baptism  by  pouring  is  no 
baptism ;  for  God  says  it  is  baptism  ;  so  that  even 
then,  our  argument  would  remain  unchanged  and  un- 
affected ;  the  consequence  would  merely  be,  that  our 
opponents  would  gain  something,  while  we  would 
lose  nothing ! 

Seeing  Mr.  O.  S.  admits  that  the  Greek  prepositions, 
at  least,  have  more  applications  than  that  which  Bap- 
tists in  their  arguments  assume  to  be  their  only  appli- 
cation, one  would  think  the  matter  might  rest  here, 
but  no,  he  returns  to  it  to  prove  that  by  admitting 
more  than  one  application  "  the  Universalists  would 
beat  me  every  time."  Well,  my  dear  sir,  as  you  have 
admitted  what  I  claim,  in  this  particular,  would  they 
not  beat  you  as  well  as  me !  But  I  will  show  you, 
however,  that  I  have  only  to  do  with  them  what  I 
have  done  with  the.  Baptists,  and  I  will  beat  then* 
every  time  !  For  instance,  when  they  say  that  the 
words  Sheol  and  Hades  mean  the  grave,  I  have  only 
to  say,  whether  they  do  or  do  not,  it  is  quite  certain 
that  they  have  not  that  meaning  here  ;  for  the  punish- 
ment here  specified  is  not  that  of  a  dead  body,  but 
that  of  a  living  soul.  Moreover,  the  grave  is  the 
receptacle  of  the  dead  and  corrupting  bodv,  not  that 
17 


19i  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

of  the  immortal  Spirit.  Again,  the  place  here  spoken 
of  burns  with  fire  and  brimstone ;  nay,  more,  it  is  a 
lake  of  fire,  and  a  bottomless  pit;  and  of  those  un- 
happy ones  who  find  their  way  there,  it  is  said  that 
the  smoke  of  their  torment  ascendeth  up  forever  and 
ever:  and  surely  I  cannot  represent  the  inspired 
writers,  or  any  man  of  common  sense,  as  saying  all 
this  of  a  little  hole,  say  eight  feet  by  four,  dug  in  the 
ground  !  I  would  now  beg  the  Universalist  to  notice 
that  this  grave  is  for  the  righteous  and  the  wicked, 
alike ;  whereas  the  Sheol,  or  Hades,  spoken  of  in  the 
text  under  consideration,  is  for  the  wicked  only  y 
"  The  wicked  shall  be  turned  into  hell."  Now  you 
see,  Mr.  O.  S.,  how  easy  it  is  for  me  to  beat  the  Uni- 
versalists  every  time,  when  they  attempt  to  support 
their  cause  by  criticisms  about  as  good  as  those  which 
you  employ  to  support  your  cause.  As  to  the  word 
aiuvLog,  which  they  also  try  to  evade,  I  can  beat 
them  there  just  as  easily ;  but  it  is  no  part  of  my  work 
to  do  so,  just  now,  as  it  is  with  Anabaptists  that  I  am 
arguing,  not  with  Universalists  ! 

Those  who  have  read  the  work  which  Mr.  O.  S.  has 
under  review  will  remember  that  I  present  many 
objections  to  plunging  as  the  only  mode  of  baptism, 
and  especially  to  plunging  naked.  The  manner  in 
which  our  reviewer  attempts  to  meet  those  objections, 
or  rather  to  evade  them,  is  in  keeping,  and  shows 
that  he  is  simply  fast  /  Hear  him  speaking  profess- 
edly to  his  pupil,  who  is  represented  as  making 
enquiry  as  to  this  particular ;  he  replies  thus  : 

"  B.  I  know  Mr.  L.  says  a  great  many  ludicrous 
things;  and  as  his  imagination  runs  back  to  scenes  of 


REPLY   TO    BAPTIST   REVIEW.  195 

baptizing  men  and  women  naked,  he  evidently  wants 
to  say  some  very  indecent  things,  but  as  it  is  he 
shows  what  is  in — pardon  the  preposition — his  heart! 

With  regard  to  the  difficulty  of  plunging  3,000  on 
the  day  of  pentecost  he  gives  the  following : 

"  B.  But  don't  you  know  at  the  close  of  that  chap- 
ter— Acts  ii. — it  is  said  they  were  'praising  God 
having  favor  with  all  the  people  ?'  " 

From  this  he  seems  to  conclude  that  the  Jews  freely 
offered  their  cisterns  and  baths,  so  that  the  apostles 
found  little  difficulty  in  plunging  them  all ! 

After  some  trifling  reference  to  Dr.  Adam  Clarke 
and  Mr.  Hibbard,  he  seems  glad  to  jump  to  a  con- 
clusion thus  :  "  What  Mr.  L.  says  about  the  baptism 
of  the  Eunuch  you  may  set  over  against  the  note  of 
Dr.  A.  Clarke."  Here  I  have  only  to  say  that  the 
writings  of  Dr.  Hibbard,  and  those  of  Dr.  Clarke, 
are  not  under  review,  and  as  those  gentlemen  neither 
need  nor  desire  my  help,  I  have  nothing  to  say  here 
with  regard  to  what  they  have,  or  have  not  said ;  and 
to  set  my  arguments  "  over  against  the  note  of  Dr. 
A.  Clarke"  is  simply  to  evade  my  arguments,  and  to 
confess  that  they  are  felt  to  be  unanswerable  !  As  to 
the  insinuation  that  I  have  said,  or  desired  to  say, 
something  naughty,  I  have  only  to  say  that  I  am  not 
conscious  of  having  said,  or  of  desiring  to  say,  any 
thing  but  what  should  be  said  and  what,  in  my  judg- 
ment, might  be  said  without  risk  by  the  best  scholar 
and  the  best  Christian,  neither  of  which  I  am  or 
claim  to  be.  And  as  to  the  difficulties  which  I  claim 
to  be  involved  in  the  opinion  that  plunging  is  the  only 
baptism  that  God  has  appointed  or  will  accept  I  have 


196  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

specified  them  formerly,  and  beg  to  say  here,  that  it 
is  folly  to  attempt  to  evade  them ;  nay,  it  is  worse  than 
folly,  it  is  disingenuous  !  The  supposition  that  the  apes- 
ties  plunged  three  thousand  men  and  women  in  Jerusa- 
lem in  a  few  hours,  and  that  John  plunged,  say  three 
million  in  Jordan  during  a  short  period  of  his  brief 
ministry,  is  simply  incredible  ;  especially  when  it  is 
remembered  that  those  vast  multitudes  were  made  up 
of  persons  of  different  constitutions  and  circum- 
stances, having  reached  different  periods  in  life,  from 
the  youth  to  the  aged  of  both  the  sexes,  including 
the  feeble,  the  delicate,  and  the  infirm,  together  with 
the  sick,  the  invalid  and  the  cripple  !  And  if  it 
should  be  said  that  all  such  were  excluded  from  the 
sacred  rite  because  they  were  such,  it  only  makes  the 
matter  still  worse  !  Finally,  at  every  given  period 
of  time  there  have  been,  and  are,  multitudes  whom 
it  would  be  cruel,  fatal,  and  even  impossible,  to 
plunge  in  cold  water;  and  yet,  the  theory  objected  to 
represents  the  infinitely  good  and  wise  God  as  enjoin- 
ing all  this  upon  all  men  to  whom  his  Gospel  shall  be 
preached !  Now,  Mr.  O.  S.  may  set  all  this  "  over 
against  Dr.  A.  Clarke's  note,"  if  he  pleases,  but  it  is 
folly  for  him  to  expect  sensible  people  to  believe  that 
in  this  way  he  will  make  his  system  acceptable,  and 
prove  it  to  be  scriptural !  The  fact  is  the  advocates  of 
this  system,  at  least  those  of  them  who  allow  them- 
selves to  think,  are  sensible  of  these  difficulties,  and 
some  of  them  are  candid  enough  to  acknowledge 
them.  For  instance,  Robert  Hall,  referring  to  the 
vast  numbers  baptized  by  John,  says,  "  It  is  by  no 
means  certain,  however,  that  John  was  the  only  per- 
son that  performed  that  ceremony ;  indeed,  when  we 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST   REVIEW.  197 

consider  the  prodigious  multitudes  that  nocked  to 
him  it  seems  scarcely  practicable ;  he  most  probably 
employed  coadjutors."  !STow,  while  this  invention, 
for  it  is  purely  an  invention,  seems  to  remove  a  little 
of  the  difficulty  in  one  particular,  it  increases  it  in 
another.  If  even  John's  authority  to  baptize  wis 
questioned  till  thorough  investigation  was  had,  and 
evidence  furnished,  what  would  have  been  the  result 
■if  others  who  could  furnish  no  evidence  of  a  divine 
call  had  baptized?  See  John  i.  19,  28. 

But  the  difficulty  here  admitted  is  only  a  single 
item  of  the  mountain  difficulties.  Only  a  few  weeks 
since,  a  gentleman  told  me  that  his  aged  mother,  who 
has  embraced  the  plunging  idea  earnestly  desires  to 
be  baptized,  but  she  is  too  old  and  infirm  to  be 
plunged,  and  as  she  believes  that  to  be  the  only  way 
she  has  concluded  to  die  unbaptized  !  Yes,  and  if 
that  is  the  only  baptism,  millions  in  every  age  must 
die  like  her,  unbaptized !  Let  them  believe  this  opin- 
ion who  can,  I  can  not ! 

The  next  article  or  dialogue,  which  is  very  long, 
has  in  it  little  that  is  worthy  of  notice,  being  made 
up  almost  entirely  of  small  talk,  assertion,  special 
pleading,  or  something  entirely  irrelevant.  Stuart, 
Wall,  Barnes,  Doddridge,  H.  W.  Beecher,  a  Dr. 
Geo.  Campbell,  and  a  Dr.  Woods,  are  appealed  to, 
or  quoted,  for  what  purpose  it  would  be  difficult  to 
say.  In  reply,  I  have  only  to  say,  whether  those 
gentlemen  are,  or  are  not,  in  favor  of  plunging  as  the 
only  Christian  baptism,  I  still  object  to  that  position, 
and  have  given  my  reasons  for  so  doing.  Now,  the 
work  of  my  opponent  is  simply  to  refute  my  argu- 
ments, and  establish  the  position  to  which  I  object, 


198  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

not  to  prove  that  those  gentlemen  and  others  were 
great  men  and  great  scholars.  Moreover,  I  know  it 
is  not  a  very  uncommon  thing  for  the  advocates  of 
plunging  to  claim  men  to  be  in  their  favor  who  really 
are  not.*  Be  that  as  it  may,  my  work  is  to  establish 
what  I  believe  to  be  the  right  view  of  this  Christian 
ordinance  in  opposition  to  what  I  believe  to  be  the 
wrong  view ;  not  to  go  all  over  creation  defending 
or  opposing  every  individual  that  has  written  on  the 
subject.  If  Mr.  O.  S.  will  establish  his  position,  by 
the  grace  of  God,  I  trust,  I  would  embrace  it  with 
him,  though  Clarke,  Doddridge,  Stuart  and  a  hundred 
others  should  oppose.  There,  are,  however,  a  few 
things  in  this  article  which  it  may  be  well  enough  to 
notice  briefly.  Dr.  Wall  is  represented  as  saying, 
when  speaking  of  "  dipping,"  "  It  was,  in  all  proba- 
bility, the  way  by  which  our  Savior,  and  for  certain, 
was  the  most  usual  way  by  which  the  ancient  Chris- 
tians did  receive  their  baptism."  Thus,  after  the  oft 
repeated  assertion  by  our  reviewer  and  Anabaptists 
generally,  that  plunging  is  so  clearly  the  only  mode 
taught  and  practiced  by  the  apostles  and  the  primi- 
tive Christians,  that  no  man  of  common  sense  and 
honesty  can  doubt  it,  so  much  so,  that  teaching  on 
the  subject  is  altogether  unnecessary  ;  even  children 
have  only  to  read  the  New  Testament  and  they  Avill 
form  no  other  idea.  I  say  after  all  this,  we  are  now 
told  that  "  in  all  probability  it  is  the  way  in  which 
our  Savior  was  baptized,  and  the  most  usual  way  by 
wThich  the  ancient  Christians  did  receive  their  bap- 
tism." Is  not  this  marvelous  ?  And  it  is  still  more 
marvelous,  that  Wall,  in    the   same  quotation  from 

*  Peter  Edwards  says  of  Booth's  SO  witnesses,  "  I  doubt  whether  one  of  them 
was  on  his  sid^." — Slicer. 


EEPLY    TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  199 

which  I  take  the  above  extract,  is  represented  as  say- 
ing, "  This  immersion  is  so  plain  and  clear,  by  an 
infinite  number  of  passages,  that  one  can  but  pity  the 
weak  endeavors  of  such  Pedobaptists  as  would  main- 
tain the  negative  of  it."  Thus  Wall  is  represented 
as  saying  that  Scripture  only  makes  it  probable  that 
our  Savior  was  baptized  by  immersion,  and  also  that 
immersion  is  plainly  and  clearly  supported  "by  an 
infinite  number  of  passages  !"  Truly  this  is  reckless, 
as  well  as  marvelous.  Moreover,  we  think  it  is  with 
a  poor  grace  that  such  persons  feign  to  pity  us  for 
not  believing  as  certain  that  which  they  confess  is 
merely  probable  from  Scripture  evidence,  while  it  is 
only  claimed  to  be  "  the  most  usual  way  by  which 
the  ancient  Christians  did  receive  their  baptism." 
Indeed,  this  is  admitting  Avhat  we  have  claimed,  and 
still  claim,  viz.,  that  there  is  not  one  clear  text  of 
Scripture  in  favor  of  baptism  by  plunging,  no  not 
one  !  But  it  is  2.  fact,  an  indisputable  fact,  that  God 
baptized  by  pouring !  Nor  can  it  be  denied,  we 
think,  that  the  application  of  different  elements  is  by 
the  Apostle  Paul  called  "  divers  baptisms."  Now, 
when  we  add  these  facts  to  the  other  facts,  texts  and 
arguments,  which  we  advanced  formerly,  we  think 
the  pity  is  due  to  those  who  ignore  them  all,  and  yet 
have  confessedly  nothing  to  offer  in  favor  of  plunging, 
beyond  mere  probability .  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that 
the  pity,  or  blame,  as  the  case  may  be,  is  due  to  the 
Anabaptists,  not  to  us.  In  their  favor,  therefore,  we 
concede  all  claim  to  pity  in  this  instance.  Nor  do 
we  admit  that  they  have  even  as  much  as  probability 
in  their  favor,  while  we  have  the  teaching  and  prac- 
tice of  the  Almiq-htv  in  our  favor. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

REVIEW  OX  INFANT  BAPTISM  AND  REPLY  THERETO. 

The  Reviewnr  fails  to  show  the  existence  of  an  Antipedobaptist 
Church  before  that  founded  by  the  German  fanatics — They 
must  accept  of  these  fanatics  as  the  fathers  of  their  system,  or 
be  without  known  parents,  while  our  practice  is  traced  to  the 
Apostles — Having  shown  the  terrible  consequences  of  applying 
to  infants  what  was  intended  for  adults  only,  the  Reviewer  ut- 
terly fails  to  avoid  those  consequences,  and  even  involves  him- 
self in  other  difficulties — He  even  denies  that  circumcision  was 
a  sign  and  seal  — It  is  admitted  that  infant  baptism  was  prac- 
tised in  the  middle  of  the  second  century — It  is  in  vain  that 
his  system  seeks  help  from  Tertullian — His  singular  Criti- 
cism upon  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus,  and  the  reply  thereto — 
His  feeble  attempt  to  meet  the  argument  based  upon  the  Greek 
words,  oikos  and  oikia,  and  the  answer  thereto — It  is  again 
admitted  that  infant  baptism  was  practised  all  but  universally 
in  the  middle  of  the  second  century — Soon  after  he  asserts  the 
contrary — another  singular  and  entirely  unsuccessful  attempt 
to  find  an  Antipedobaptist  society  before  the  German  fanatics 
— The  Donatists  and  Noratians  are  claimed  as  their  ancestors 
— In  reply,  the  history  of  those  heretical  sects  is  given — Bad 
as  these  sects  were,  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  were  An- 
tipedobaptists — Our  principal  arguments  are  either  ignored  or 
merely  evaded — The  statement,  "  We  will  have  no  inference, 
nothing  but  positive  command,"  is  examined,  and  its  weakness 
exposed — It  is  with  a  bad  grace  that  the  Anabaptists  make  the 
statement,  seeing  their  system  rests  entirely  upon  inference  or 
assumption. 

In  reply  to  the  numerous  historic  facts  which  we 
have  adduced  to  show  the  origin  of  he  Antipedobap 
lists,  and  their  peculiar  tenet,  our  reviewer  gives  us 
the  following  :     "  Moshiem  says,    '  The  true  origin  of 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  201 

that  sect  which  acquired  the  denomination  of  the 
Anabaptists,  ....  is  hidden  in  the  depths  of  antiqui- 
ty,'  &c." 

To  this  our  reply  is  brief.  The  origin  of  the  An- 
tipedobaptist  denomination,  or  sect,  we  have  traced 
to  the  German  fanatics  of  the  sixteenth  century.  If 
a  denomination  opposing  infant  baptism  existed  be- 
fore that  time,  we  call  upon  the  Antipedobaptists  to 
tell  us  when  and  where.  Mr.  Baxter  long  ago  urged 
the  same  request,  and  defied  any  man  to  do  so.  And 
not  only  does  he  assert  that  such  a  denomination 
cannot  be  found,  but  he  adds,  "  I  think  not  one  man." 
And  many  other  great  men,  much  more  competent  to 
judge  than  the  humble  author  of  the  work  under  re- 
view, have  given  the  same  challenge ;  but  in  reply  to 
all  this,  we  are  simply  told  that  their  "origin  is  hid- 
den in  the  depths  of  antiquity !"  I  wonder  that 
these  poor  fatherless  children  don't  claim  kindred  to 
Melchisedek,  seeing,  that,  like  him,  they  are  without 
father  or  mother,  without  descent!  But,  my  friends, 
the  historic  fact  remains  a  fact  still.  As  Antipedo- 
baptists, the  German  fanatics  are  your  parents, 
whether  you  acknowledge  them  or  not ;  and  to  be  re- 
duced to  the  necessity  of  disowning  your  parents,  or 
of  asserting  that  you  have  no  known  parentage,  is 
certainly  a  very  painful  position.  And  it  must  be 
very  gratifying  to  Pedobaptists  to  be  able  to  trace 
their  origin  by  a  clear  and  honorable  line  to  a  parent- 
age so  noble — even  to  the  inspired  writers,  and  to 
the  Father  of  the  Spirits  of  all  flesh,  who  commanded 
that  the  very  same  seal  of  the  covenant  that  was  ap- 
plied to  the  parent,  should  be  applied  to  the  children 


202  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

of  that  parent,  though  the  children,  being  only  eight 
days  old,  were,  of  course,  utterly  incapable  of  exer- 
cising that  faith  which,  on  the  part  of  the  parent,  was 
a  necessary  qualification.  And  this  practice  was  con- 
tinued and  enforced  by  Divine  authority  till  the  seal 
was  changed  from  circumcision  to  baptism.  And  let 
it  be  observed,  that  this  is  the  only  change  that  was 
made  ;  the  covenant,  the  promises,  and  the  conditions 
being  essentially  the  same.  The  covenant  is  still  the 
covenant  of  grace  ;  the  promise  is  still  "  to  you  and 
to  your  children"  ;  and  the  condition  still  is  faith; 
and  now,  as  before,  the  child  is  received  into  the  cov- 
enant with  the  believing  parent,  and  receives  the  seal 
accordingly.  In  a  word,  "what  belonged  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed,  spiritually,  to  say  the  least,  belongs  to 
Christians  and  their  seed  ;  but  to  deny  baptism  to 
their  children,  is  to  deny  this  fact.  Baptists  try  to 
evade  this  conclusion,  by  saying,  "  The  promise  is  to 
you  and  to  your  adult  children."  But  the  text,  or 
promise,  does  not  so  read  ;  in  fact,  this  is  simply  re- 
peating that  other  promise,  "  Believe  and  thou  shalt 
be  saved,"  while  the  promise,  to  your  children,  is 
really  excluded  by  this  mode  of  interpretation. 
Still  worse  is  the  attempt  to  evade  the  force  of  that 
other  passage  where  Paul  represents  the  children  of 
believers  as  being  clean,  evidently  because  they  were 
consecrated  to  God  in  baptism,  while  those  of  unbe- 
lieving parents  were  not ;  for  by  nature,  they  certain- 
ly are  alike.  See  Psalm  li.  5,  John  iii.  6,  Romans 
iii.  9,  &c.  Yet,  for  the  purpose  here  specified,  and  at 
the  risk  of  all  consequences,  Baptists  would  read, 
"legitimate"    and    "illegitimate"!     We   dare   not 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST     REVIEW.  203 

venture  strictures  upon  a  construction  so  ridiculous  ! 
But  it  is  a  painful  fact  that  one  error  will,  if  not  given 
up,  drive  men  to  other  errors.  We  may  be  permitted 
to  add  just  here,  in  view  of  what  has  been  said,  that, 
although  we  trace  our  practice  to  "  the  depths  of  an- 
tiquity," we  do  not  find  it  hid  there ;  no,  we  find  it 
there  in  legible  characters,  to  be  "  known  and  read 
of  all  men !" 

It  will  be  remembered  that  I  exposed  the  fallacy 
and  terrible  consequences  of  applying  to  infants  what 
was  evidently  designed  for  adults  only,  consequences 
so  terrible  that  in  this  way  you  would  first  starve  to 
death,  and  then  damn  infants,  and  support  all  this  by 
the  Word  of  God  !  The  attempt  of  our  reviewer  to 
evade  this  reasoning,  is  truly  a  sorry  one.  In  con- 
nection with  much  irrelevant  talk  about  "  the  gospel 
commission,"  and  about  what  Dr.  Carson  says 
about  it,  he  gives  us  the  following — the  reader  will 
please  give  it  a  name  :  "  B.  If  they  (infants)  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  gospel  of  the  commission, 
have  they  any  thing  to  do  with  its  ordinances  ?  A. 
Of  course  not;  for  the  gospel  and  its  ordinances  go 
together.  So  I  think."  In  this  way  he  attempts  to 
prove  that  as  children  could  not  understand  or  be- 
lieve a  preached  gospel,  therefore,  they  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  gospel  or  its  ordinances,  and,  consequently, 
cannot  be  saved  ;  for  to  be  saved  without  the  gospel  is 
to  be  saved  without  Christ !  Thus,  by  this  absurd  rea- 
soning, he  brings  down  upon  his  theory  the  very  conse- 
quences with  which  I  charged  it.  Now,  Mr.  O.  S., 
you  know  that  the  reasoning  by  which  it  is  attempted 
to   prove  that  infants  should  not   be  baptized,  will 


204  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

prove  with  the  very  same  conclusiveness  that  they 
should  be  starved  to  death,  and  that  they  will  be 
damned;  I  say  you  know  this.  And  you  know,  too, 
that  to  say  that  the  disciples  were  not  sent  to  preach 
to  infants,  and  to  say  that  infants  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  gospel,  are  two  different  things.  And  you 
know  equally  well  that  infants  are  not  discipled  by 
preaching  the  gospel  to  them,  though  you  say  so  in 
the  following  words.  Pretending  to  speak  to  your 
young  convert,  you  say : 

"Now  will  you  turn  Campbellite,  and  say  they  are 
to  be  discipled  by  baptizing,  or  by  preaching  the  gos- 
pel to  them  ? 

"A.  By  preaching  the  gospel,  of  course. 

"B.  Then,  of  course,  none  are  to  be  baptized  till 
they  are  of  sufficient  age  to  be  taughjfc — they  must 
be  taught  before  they  can  believe,  and  must  believe 
before  they  can  receive  the  baptism  of  the  commis- 
sion— the  only  Christian  baptism  for  us." 

You,  know  too,  that  all  I  have  said  on  this  subject 
is  predicated  of  infants,  to  whom  the  Gospel  can- 
not be  preached  and  who  cannot  possibly  comply 
with  any  condition  of  salvation,  and  you  know  equally 
well  that  the  seal  that  was  applied  to  the  believing 
parent  was,  by  the  command  of  the  Almighty,  applied 
to  the  infant  child  of  that  parent ;  nor  can  you  deny 
that  baptism  is  the  seal  of  that  same  covenant  of 
grace  of  which  circumcision  iocis  the  seal ;  and  yet, 
ignoring  or  denying  all  this,  you  keep  asserting  that 
the  seal  cannot  be  applied  till  the  recipient  is  qualified 
by  instruction  and  faith,  and  you  know,  also,  that 
God  not  only  has  not  said  what  you  say,  but  that  he 


EEPLY     TO     BAPTIST     REVIEW.  205 

has  said  just  the  contrary !  And  yon  know,  and  can- 
not but  know,  that  the  arguments  and  facts  adduced 
had  reference  to  infants,  yet  ignoring  this,  ever  and 
anon  you  keep  talking  about  instructed  and  believing 
children.  Finally,  while  you  constantly  assert  that 
instruction  and  faith  are  in  every  ca3e  an  essential 
qualification  before  the  seal  of  the  covenant  can  be 
applied,  you  know  that  God  taught,  and  his  church 
practiced  the  contrary  in  the  case  of  infants  from 
the  days  of  Abraham  ;  and  you  know  that  it  was  to 
meet  and  disprove  this  your  ungrounded  assertion 
that  we  adduced  the  fact  that  God  commanded  the 
seal  to  be  applied  to  infants,  and  the  additional  fact 
that  he  never  repealed  that  law ;  yet  you  evade  these 
facts  and  arguments  and  keep  talking  about  some- 
thing else.  That  baptism  took  the  place  of  circum- 
cision we  have  proved  by  other  arguments,  but 
whether  this  is  admitted  or  denied,the  fact  remains 
the  same,  viz.,  that  the  infant  was  received  into  cove- 
nant relation  with  the  believing  parent,  and  received 
the  seal  of  the  covenant  accordingly ;  so  that  all  your 
talk  about  "  unconscious  babes  "  is  simply  a  reflection 
upon  the  judgment  of  the  Almighty  in  the  case  !  If 
men  are  determined  to  oppose  the  baptism  of  infants 
they  certainly  should  not  base  their  opposition  upon 
the  fact  that  babes  cl- nnot  believe.  Mere  deference 
to  the  judgment  of  the  Almighty  in  the  case  should, 
one  would  think,  be  sufficient  to  prevent  this.  Bap- 
tists are  evidently  conscious  of  this,  hence  they  try 
to  evade  or  deny  the  very  nature  and  design  of  cir- 
cumcision, knowing,  as  they  must,  that  a  babe  at 
eight  days  old  was  as  unconscious  formally  as  it  is  at 


206  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

that  age  now,  as  also  that  if  that  fact  did  not  disqual- 
ify for  circumcision  it  does  not  disqualify  for  bap- 
tism. 

In  addition  to  what  we  have  already  said  to  show 
how  the  Baptists  attempt  to  evade  or  deny  the  facts 
here  specified,  we  give  the  following  from  the  third 
article  of  the  series  under  consideration : 

"A.  But  it  seems  to  me  according  to  Mr.  L's 
showing,  we  are  still  bound  to  circumcise  male  infants. 
He  says  until  the  Anabaptists  can  point  to  the  posi- 
tive annulment  of  the  command  to  circumcise  chil- 
dren, they  are  bound  to  do  as  we  do ;  and  if  they 
still  refuse  to  obey  this  confessedly  unrepealed  law  of 
God,  they  do  so  at  their  own  risk." 

In  reply  to  all  this  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that 
I  never  said  so,  and  my  reviewer  knows  I  did  not,  as 
his  remarks  soon  after  sufficiently  show.  I  said  the 
command  to  apply  to  the  infant  the  same  sign  and 
seal  that  was  applied  to  the  parent  was  never  repealed, 
and  if  the  Antipedobaptists  repeal  it  they  do  so  at 
their  own  risk.  The  reader  will  now  see  that  this  is 
much  worse  than  mere  evasion.  He  adds,  "  And  all 
he  has  said  upon  this  whole  subject  of  signs  and  seals 
is  a  mass  of  confusion  and  nonsense."  Of  this  we 
are  quite  willing  to  leave  the  candid  reader  to  judge, 
nor  need  we  complain  or  be  at  all  concerned  in  this 
matter,  for  it  is  upon  Paul  that  this  severe  reflection 
falls,  not  upon  us.  See  Heb.  iv.  11.  But  not  satis- 
fied with  this  he  denies  that  circumcision  was  the  rite 
of  initiation  into  the  Jewish  church,  yea  he  de- 
nies, if  we  understand  him  right,  the  very  existence 
of  the  Jewish  Church,  but  hear  him  speak  for  him- 
self:— 


REPLY     TO    BAPTIST     REVIEW.  207 

"Now  that  children  were  circumcised  to  initiate 
them  into  the  church  is  simply  untrue.  If  it  is  prop- 
er in  any  sense,  to  call  the  nation  of  Israel  a  church, 
infants  were  born  members,  and  not  circumcised  to 
constitute  them  such." 

"  Infants  were  born  members"  of  what?  of  what 
did  not  exist  ?  Truly  this  is  "  confusion  worse  con- 
founded !"  But  if  you  do  not  like  to  be  held  to  this  mar- 
velous blunder  then  you  say  infants  were  born  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  which  is  certainly  granting  all  we 
claim,  for  if  they  were  by  their  very  birth  members 
of  the  church,  we  should  like  to  know  by  what  au- 
thority Baptists  refuse  them  the  seal  of  the  covenant, 
and  even  turn  them  out  of  church !  Observe,  too, 
that  after  all  the  talk  about  "  unconscious  babes,"  it 
is  here  acknowledged  that  they  were  members  of  the 
church,  were  so  by  birth,  and  we  should  like  to  know 
upon  what  authority  the  children  of  Christian  parents 
are  deprived  of  the  high  privilege  and  right  secured 
to  the  children  of  Jewish  parents  ;  especially  as  the 
ancient  promise,  "to  thee  and  to  thy  seed,"  made  to 
Abraham,  is  repeated  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
thus  extended  to  the  children  of  Christian  parents  in 
these  words,  "  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  chil- 
dren." Certainly  we  must  have  higher  authority 
than  that  of  the  German  fanatics  before  we  submit 
to  have  our  children  deprived  of  this  "exceeding 
great  and  precious  promise,"  and  turned  out  of  the 
church  as  "  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel 
and  strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise  !" 

"  A.  But  did  not  Mr.  L.  prove  that  circumcision 
was  a  seal  applied  to  infants  at  eight  days' old  ?" 


208  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

"  B.  No,  he  did  not  prove  that;  he  has  asserted 
this  in  a  very  circuitous  manner,  as  he  has  many 
other  things  ;  but  of  proof  there  is  none.  Circum- 
cision is  called  a  seal  once,  and  but  once,  in  all  the 
Bible." 

Over  against  this  marvelous  assertion  we  simply 
set  the  following  Scriptures  to  which  the  reader  will 
please  turn  and  read;  Gen.  xvii.  9-14,  Rom.  iv.  11. 
As  this  issue  is  clearly  between  the  Baptists  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  on  the 
other,  we,  of  course,  leave  our  opponents  to  settle 
their  quarrel  with  divine  revelation,  for  we  did  not 
undertake  to  discuss  the  evidences  of  revelation.  As 
we  rest  the  point  in  dispute  upon  the  plain  text  of 
Scripture  we  particularly  request  the  reader  to  turn 
to  the  texts  here  specified,  and  to  parallel  passages : 
there  it  will  be  seen  that  our  opponents  contradict  the 
express  word  of  God,  which  shows  that  their  case  is 
truly  desperate ;  and  it  will  be  seen,  too,  that  circum- 
cision is  not  only  called  a  seal,  but  a  sign  and  seal  / 
yea,  "  a  seal  of  the  righteoicsness  of  the  faith  which 
he  had  yet  being  uncircumcised."  Observe,  it  was 
the  sign  and  seal  of  the  righteous?iess,  or  justifica- 
tion which  he  had  by  faith  before  he  received  that 
rite,  so  that  circumcision  was  not  the  temporal,  the 
political  rite  that  our  opponents  say  it  was — being 
forced  to  this  desperate  remedy  by  the  hopelessness 
of  their  bad  cause.  Observe,  too,  that  the  word 
which  the  apostle  uses  to  designate  that  which 
Abraham  had  by  faith,  is  the  very  same  that  he  uses 
to  designate  that  which  the  infant  has  uncondition- 
al)/  through    Christ;    that    which    through    Christ 


.REPLY    TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  209 

"  came  upon  all;"  hence  it  is  that  the  very  same 
seal  that  was  applied  to  the  believing  parent  was, 
and  is,  applied  to  the  infant  children  of  that  parent. 
See  the  word  as  it  occurs  in  the  original  in  chapters 
four  and  five  of  Romans. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  as  Baptists  assert  that 
infant  baptism  is  a  novelty,  a  human  invention,  a 
popish  invention,  we  appealed  to  the  facts  of  history  ; 
not  to  prove  the  doctrine,  as  Mr.  O.  S.  tells  his  read- 
ers, but  to  prove,  in  opposition  to  the  above  assertion, 
that  the  practice  has  been  universal,  and  continuous 
from  apostolic  times  until  now,  and  that  history  does 
not  record  a  single  instance  of  its  being  opposed  by 
any  denomination  of  Christians  till  it  was  opposed 
by  the  German  fanatics  in  the  sixteenth  century ;  and 
to  this  we  demanded  contradiction,  if  it  could  be 
contradicted,  calling  upon  our  opponents  to  tell  us, 
if  they  could,  when,  where  and  by  whom  infant  bap- 
tism was  introduced ;  telling  them,  at  the  same  time, 
when,  tohere  and  by  whom,  antipedobctptism  was  in- 
troduced. ,  To  all  this  our  reviewer  gives  the  follow- 
ing reply  : 

"  Suppose  I  ask  Mr.  L.  when  sponsors  were  first 
appointed — when  praying  for  the  dead  first  com- 
menced— when  infant  communion  was  first  intro- 
duced— and  exorcism — unction,  etc.  ?  All  he  could 
do  would  be  to  say  about  the  close  of  the  second,  or 
beginning  of  the  third  century.  Now  what  I  have 
to  say,  is,  that  infant  baptism  commenced  at  the  same 
period  with  these  other  rites." 

Again  "Prof.  Hahns  says:  Neither  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, nor  during  the  first  hundred  and  fifty  years, 
18 


210  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

is     a   sure     example     of     infant     baptism    to    be 
found." 

Yes,  sir,  "  Mr.  L."  could  say,  and  he  has  already 
said  a  great  deal  more  than  this.  See  Chapter  XI. 
of  the  work  under  review,  to  mention  no  more.  But 
waiving  all  that  might  be  said  on  that  particular,  as 
not  being  very  important,  we  beg  to  remind  our  re- 
viewer that,  to  make  certain  additions  to  a  Christian 
institution,  trifling  at  first,  and  wholly  to  do  away 
with  that  institution,  are  very  different  things.  The 
former  might  be  done  stealthily  and  by  degrees, 
without  much  opposition  or  notice  ;  not  so  the  latter  ; 
hence  the  introduction  of  the  Antipedobaptist  dogma 
by  the  German  fanatics,  was  distinctly  marked  and 
firmly,  and  almost  universally  opposed,  as  a  novelty 
not  to  be  tolerated.  See  our  proofs  of  all  this  in 
Chapter  XII.  Our  reviewer  admits,  it  will  be  ob- 
served, in  the  above  quotations,  that  infant  baptism 
was  practiced  in  the  second,  or  in  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century.  And  as  for  Professor  Hahns,  he 
cannot  "  find  a  sure  example  of  infant  baptism 
during  the  first  hundred  and  fifty  years."  Very 
well,  what  does  that  prove  ?  That  others  cannot  find 
it  practiced  during  that  period  ?  Certainly  not. 
We  have  produced  our  witnesses  to  prove  that  it  was 
practiced  in,  and  from  Apostolic  times ;  and,  surely, 
Professor  Halm's  ignorance  does  not  make  null  and 
void  the  positive  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr,  Ire- 
nseus,  Ambrose,  Origin,  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  and 
other  fathers.  See  the  chapters  referred  to  above. 
To  the  testimony  of  individual  fathers,  may  be  added 
that   of  councils — the   council   of  Carthage,  for  in- 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST     REVIEW.  211 

stance,  at  which  Cyprian  presided,  in  254.  See  the 
decision  of  this  council,  quoted  page  80.  Now  Ave 
think  the  testimony  of  those  fathers  and  councils  as 
to  what  they  actually  found,  and  positively  asserted, 
is  better  than  the  testimony  of  Professor  Hahn  and 
others  as  to  what  they  did  not  find.  In  other  words, 
the  knowledge  of  the  former  is  better  than  the  igno- 
rance of  the  latter  !  In  short,  we  called  upon  Anti- 
pedobaptists  to  tell  us  when,  where,  and  by  whom  in- 
fant baptism  was  introduced,  and  in  answer  they  have 
given  us  the  above :  Why  ?  I  answer,  simply  be- 
cause they  had  nothing  else  to  give,  unless  they  would 
give  us  the  truth;  viz.,  that  infant  baptism  was  in- 
troduced when  infant  circumcision  was  discontinued, 
and  by  the  same  authority  !  Till  they  refute  this  po- 
sition, we  will  let  the  above  poor  answer  go  for  what  it 
is  worth ;  that  is,  nothing  at  all,  unless  to  prove  that 
our  position  is  unanswerable  !  Meantime,  we  hope 
they  will  not  again  tell  us  that  infant  baptism  is  a 
popish  invention,  seeing  they  have  now  admitted  the 
existence  of  the  practice  several  hundred  years  be- 
fore popery  existed ! 

But  our  reviewer  seeks  help  from  Tertullian.  Very 
unfortunately,  we  think,  for  his  cause,  he  says : 
"  Tertullianj  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  fathers 
of  the  second  century,"  was  the  first  to  oppose  infant 
baptism — hence  it  is  supposed  to  have  originated 
about  his  time."  Again,  ".Dr.  Barlow  says  Pedo- 
baptism  '  came  into  the  world  in  the  second  century.'  " 
After  a  diligent  search,  Pedobaptism  is  found  in  the 
second  century,  and  Tertullian  the  first  to  oppose  it, 
that  is,  less  than  one  hundred  years   after  the  Apos- 


212  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

ties'  times  !  Well,  we  are  glad  that  we  moved  our 
Baptist  friends  to  search  after  this  thing,  for  they 
have  made  some  important  discoveries,  and  conces- 
sions too.  It  is  now  a  conceded  and  settled  fact  that 
the  baptism  of  infants  was  practiced  in  the  second 
century,  so  that  it  is  neither  a  novelty  nor  a  popish 
invention,  certain  !  And  "  Tertullian  was  the  first 
to  oppose."  Yea,  and  the  last  too,  till  the  sixteenth 
century,  for  anything  that  has  been  shown  to  the  con- 
trary !  But  what  did  Tertullian  say?  Did  he  say 
that  infant  baptism  did  not  take  the  place  of  infant 
circumcision?  No.  Did  he  say  that  infant  baptism 
was  not  practiced  by  the  Apostles  ?  Did  he  say  that 
it  was  forbidden  by  the  Apostles,  or  that  it  was  un- 
scriptural  ?  No,  nothing  of  the  kind.  Did  he  say 
that  it  was  a  novelty,  that  it  was  an  innovation  re- 
cently introduced?  No,  he  did  not  even  intimate 
any  thing  of  this  kind.  Well,  did  he  tell  us  who  in- 
troduced the  practice,  whether  lately  or  at  a  more 
remote  period  ?  No,  no  such  statement  is  found  in 
his  writings  which  have  come  down  to  us.  What 
then,  did  he  say?  To  this  question,  our  reviewer 
gives  no  answer,  for  although  he  claims  Tertullian  as 
a  supporter  of  his  system,  and  appeals  to  him  ac- 
cordingly, he  has  not  quoted  a  single  word  from  his 
writings.  So  that  we  might  let  his  appeal  to  this 
father  go  for  what  it  is  worth  ;  that  is,  nothing  at  all 
to  the  Antipedobaptists,  though  it  is  worth  consider- 
able to  us,  for  it  affords  certain  evidence  that  if  Ter- 
tullian had  said  that  infant  baptism  was  a  novelty,  and 
antiscriptural,  they  would  certainly  have  produced 
such  statements ;  but  they  have  given  us  no   such 


KEPLY    TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  213 

quotations,  for  the  best  of  all  reasons ;  viz.,  there 
were  none  such  to  give  !  Hence  we  are  simply  told 
that  he  "  was  the  first  to  oppose  infant  baptism,"  and 
that  he  was  "  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  fathers 
of  the  second  century."  For  what  was  this  father 
eminent?  We  regret  that  our  reviewer  has  not  told 
us.  This  assertion,  like  many  others,  is  entirely  un- 
supported. In  support  of  it  he  has  not  given  us  a 
single  quotation  from  the  writings  of  that  father,  from 
his  contemporaries,  or  from  any  other  source.  In 
view  of  this,  we  may  be  permitted  to  add  a  few  re- 
marks to  what  we  have  already  said  regarding  this 
eminent  father. 

What  we  have  read  concerning  Tertullian,  will,  we 
think,  fully  justify  us  in  saying  that  he  was  very 
erratic,  and  his  judgment  as  a  theologian  entirely  un- 
reliable. He  had  much  zeal,  but  it  was  not  often  ac- 
cording to  knowledge.  Hence  we  are  told,  after  all 
his  opposition  to  error  and  errorists,  he  embraced  the 
pernicious  opinions  of  the  Montanists,  whose  founder 
was  one  Montanus,  a  Phrygian.  The  account  that 
Bishop  Hurd  gives  of  this  man  and  his  followers,  pre- 
sents a  dark  picture.  He  claimed  to  be  inspired,  as 
did  the  two  women  associated  with  him,  Friscilla  and 
Maximilla,  which  three  formed  the  original  leaders  of 
the  sect.  He-  claimed  that  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made 
known  to  him  many  things  that  had  been  concealed 
from  the  Apostles.  Several  councils  condemned  his 
teachings,  and  he  and  all  his  followers  were  excluded 
from  the  Christian  Church.  This  sect  sprang  up  in 
the  days  of  Tertullian,  and  began  to  dwindle  away 
toward   the   latter  end  of  the  fourth  century.     (See 


214  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

Bishop  Hurd's  History  of  Religions,  page  159,  edition 
of  1813.)  So  much  for  the  eminence  of  this  father, 
who  is  claimed  as  the  advocate  of  Antipedobaptism, 
and  the  first  opponent  of  infant  baptism. 

But  still  the  question  recurs,  What  did  he  say  in 
opposition  to  infant  baptism  ?  We  have  heard  what 
he  did  not  say,  now  let  us  hear  what  he  did  say.  He 
attempts  to  defend  his  peculiar  view  with  regard  to 
the  baptism  of  children  (I  say  his  peculiar  view,  for  I 
know  not  what  name  to  give  it)  thus,  '"Give  not 
that  which  is  holy  unto  dogs,  neither  cast  your  pearls 
before  swine.'  '  Lay  hands  suddenly  upon  no  man, 
neither  be  partakers  of  other  men's  faults.'  There- 
fore, according  to  every  one's  condition  and  dispo- 
sition, and  also  their  age,  the  delaying  of  baptism  is 
more  profitable,  especially  in  the  case  of  little  chil- 
dren. For  what  need  is  there  that  the  godfathers 
should  be  brought  into  danger  ?  because  they  may 
either  fail  of  their  promise  by  death,  or  they  may  be 
mistaken  by  a  child's  proving  of  wicked  disposition." 
Again,  "  What  need  their  guiltless  age  make  such 
haste  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ?"  These  particulars 
are  extracted  from  the  words  of  Tertullian,  as  given 
by  Hibbard,  in  his  Work  on  Baptism,  pp,  190,  191. 
All  the  support  that  the  opponents  of  infant  baptism 
can  obtain  from  such  consummate  nonsense,  they  aro 
welcome  to  it !  But  the  reader  is  requested  to  no- 
tice that  he  simply  contends  that  the  delaying  of 
baptism,  according  to  every  one's  condition,  dispo- 
sition, and  age,  and  especially  in  the  case  of  children, 
is  more  profitable  !  Evidently  a  mere  whim  of  his 
own,  and  as  evidently  a  very  different  whim  from  that 


REPLY   TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  215 

of  modern  Antipedobaptists.  He  would  defer  bap- 
tism in  the  case  of  adults  as  well  as  in  the  case  of 
infants.  And  why  ?  Not  because  he  claimed  it  to 
be  unscriptural  in  either  case,  but  because  he  consid- 
ered it  "more  profitable."  Where  the  infant  was 
likely  to  die,  however,  he  recommended,  or  advised, 
that  it  should  be  baptized  without  delay.  His  words 
as  given  by  Watson,  are,  if  their  lives  be  in  danger. 
It  should  be  observed,  too,  that  Tertullian  merely 
gives  us  his  judgment,  and  attempts  to  support  it  by 
his  reasoning  as  above.  .But  his  judgment  is  evident- 
ly unreliable,  and  his  reasoning  driveling  nonsense. 
If  it  were,  his  testimony  with  regard  to  whether  ia- 
fant  baptism  were  an  innovation  of  modern  date, 
would  have  weight,  but  his  mere  judgment,  as  given 
in  this  case,  and  utterly  unsupported  by  either  Scrip- 
ture or  history,  yea,  contradicted  by  both,  is,  of 
course,  utterly  unworthy  of  notice.  In  such  a  case, 
the  mere  opinion  of  the  best  of  the  fathers  would  be 
without  weight,  for  we  know  the  wisest  of  them 
erred,  or  was  liable  to  err,  in  such  matters,  when  not 
guided  by  the  Word  of  God.  What  Mr.  Watson 
says  with  regard  to  the  opinion  of  Tertullian  in  this 
matter,  is  a  key  to  the  whole  secret :  "  The  whole  of 
this  is  solved  by  adverting  to  that  notion  of  the  effi- 
ciency of  this  sacrament  in  taking  away  all  previous 
sins,  which  then  began  to  prevail,  so  that  an  induce- 
ment was  held  out  for  delaying  baptism  as  long  as 
possible,  till  at  length,  in  many  cases,  it  was  post- 
poned to  the  article  of  death,  under  the  belief  that 
the  dying  who  received  this  sacrament  were  the  more 
secure  of  salvation."     Institutes,  Vol.  II.,  page  645. 


216  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

We  are  strongly  inclined  to  believe  that  in  this  whim 
of  Tertullian,  may  be  found  the  germ  of  that  popish 
dogma,  that  the  sacraments  confer  grace  ex  opere 
operate,  and  probably  the  dogma  of  extreme  unction, 
which  is  to  be  administered  just  before  death,  took 
its  rise  in  this  same  silly  conception  of  Tertullian. 

Once  more,  and  we  will  take  our  leave  of  this  an- 
tipedo,  anti-adult  .Baptist,  or  baptist- delayer,  or 
what  you  please  to  call  him.  Tertullian,  we  are  told, 
was  made  presbyter  of  the  Church  at  Carthage,  about 
the  year  A.  D.  192,  and  the  council  at  which  the  sub- 
ject of  infant  baptism  was  discussed,  was  held  in  that 
same  city,  A.  D.  254.  At  this  council  sixty-six 
bishops  were  present,  when  this  same  subject  of  de- 
laying, or  not  delaying  the  baptism  of  infants,  was 
brought  up  in  the  way  we  before  stated.  There  was 
not  a  word  as  to  whether  infants  should  be  baptized, 
but  simply  as  to  whether  it  was  necessary  to  delay 
their  baptism  till  the  eighth  day,  as  in  the  case  of  cir- 
cumcision, and  the  unanimous  decision  of  the  council 
was,  "that  it  was  not  necessary  to  defer  baptism  to 
that  day,  and  that  the  grace  of  God,  or  baptism, 
should  be  given  to  all,  and  especially  to  infants !" 
Cyprian,  the  presiding  bishop,  in  communicating  this 
decision  to  Fidus,  the  absent  inquirer,  says,  "  It  was 
unanimously  decreed."  Just  so  little  was  Antipedo- 
baptism  known  in  those  days,  and  so  little  were  Ter- 
tullian and  his  nation  remembered,  even  in  his  own 
city,  only  a  feio  years  after  his  death !  It  was  to 
bring  out  this  last  fact,  that  I  again  referred  to  the 
decision  of  this  council.  The  historic  fact  I  quote 
from  Watson's  Institutes,  Vol.  II.,  page  645.     The 


REPLY     TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  217 

system  that  seeks  support  from  such  a  notion  of  such 
a  man,  in  opposition  to  such  an  array  of  testimony 
from  councils  and  fathers,  right  in  the  place  of,  arid 
at  the  time  the  notion  loas  mooted,  must  certainly  be 
in  great  need  of  support.  Oh,  why  will  men  persist 
in  attempting  to  defend  what  is  evidently  indefensi- 
ble ?  If  infant  baptism  had  been  an  innovation  of 
recent  date,  and,  consequently,  only  limitedly  prac- 
ticed, it  is  evident  Tertullian  would  have  said  so,  and 
equally  evident  that  this  council,  in  the  face  of  such 
facts,  never  could  have  decided  as  it  did.  And  if  it 
was  not  an  innovation  of  recent  date,  then  it  was  the 
practice  of  apostolic  times ! 

As  I  have  referred  to  the  decision  of  the  Council 
at  Carthage,  with  regard  to  the  baptism  of  infants, 
and  as  that  decision  shows  beyond  the  possibility  of 
mistake  what  the  vieios  and  practice  of  the  primitive 
Church  were,  I  will  here  give  an  extract  from  the  let- 
ter of  Bishop  Cyprian,  who  presided  at  that  Council. 
I  quote  from  Lord  King,  giving  his  own  introductory 
and  closing  remarks  : 

"To  these  testimonies  of  Origen,  I  might  also  add 
those  of  Irengeus,lib.  11,  cap.  39,  p.  137,  and  of  Cy- 
prian De  Lapsis,  §  7,  p.  279.  But  I  shall  choose  to 
waive  them  because  I  would  willingly  translate  at 
length  the  determination  of  an  African  synod,  held 
anno  254,  whereat  were  present  threescore  and  six 
bishops,  the  occasion  of  which  determination  was 
this  :  A  certain  bishop,  called  Fidus,  had  some  scru- 
ples, not  concerning  the  baptism  of  infants,  but  con- 
cerning the  time  of  their  baptism,  whether  they  might 
be  baptized  before  the  second  or  third  day  after  their 
19 


218  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM, 

birth,  or  before  the  eighth  day,  as  it  was  observed 
with  respect  to  circumcision  under  the  Mosaical 
economy  ;  the  reasons  or  grounds  for  which,  his  scru- 
ples, he  proposed  to  this  synod,  who,  having  seriously 
examined  them,  unanimously  decreed  that  children's 
baptism  was  not  to  be  deferred  so  long,  but  that  tho 
grace  of  God  or  baptism  should  be  given  to  all,  and 
most  especially  unto  infants,  which  synodical  decree, 
because  so  pertinent  to  my  purpose,  I  have  at  large 
transcribed  as  follows  : 

"  '  As  for  the  matter  of  infants,  who,  you  said,  were 
not  to  be  baptized  within  the  second  or  third  day  af- 
ter their  nativity,  or  according  to  the  laws  of  circum- 
cision, within  the  eighth  day  thereof,  it  hath  appeared 
to  us  in  our  council  quite  contrary;  no  one  maintain- 
ed your  opinion,  but  we  all  judged,  that  the*  mercy 

and  grace  of  God  was  to  be   denied  to  no  man 

And  whereas  the  carnal  Jewish  circumcision  was  per- 
formed on  the  eighth  day,  that  was  a  type  and  shad- 
ow of  some  future  good  thing,  which  Christ,  the 
truth,  being  now  come,  is  done  away  ;  because  the 
eighth  day,  or  the  first  day  after  the  Sabbath,  was  to 
be  the  day  on  which  our  Lord  should  rise  and  quicken 
us,  and  give  us  the  spiritual  circumcision  ;  therefore 
was  the  carnal  circumcision  on  the  eighth  day,  which 
type  is  now  abolished,  Christ,  the  truth,  being  come, 
and  having  given  us  the  spiritual  circumcision. 
Wherefore  it  is  our  judgment,  that  no  one  ought  to 
be  debarred  from  God's  grace  by  that  law,  or  that 
the  spiritual  circumcision  should  be  hindered  by  the 
carnal  one ;  but  all  men  ought  to  be  admitted  to  the 
grace  of  Christ,  as  Peter  sayeth  in  the  Acts  of  the 


REPLY    TO     BAPTIST    REVIEW.  219 

Apostles,  that  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  that  he  should 
call  no  man  common  or  unclean. 

"  '  But  if  any  thing  can  hinder  men  from  baptism, 
it  will  be  heinous  sins  that  will  debar  the  adult  and 
mature  therefrom  ;  and  if  those  who  have  sinned  ex- 
tremely against  God,  yet  if  afterward  they  believe, 
are  baptized,  and  no  man  is  prohibited  from  this 
grace,  how  much  more  ought  not  an  infant  to  be  pro- 
hibited, who,  being  but  just  born,  is  guilty  of  no  sin, 
but  of  original,  which  he  contracted  from  Adam  ?  who 
ought  the  more  readily  to  be  received  to  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  because  not  his  own,  but  others'  sins 
are  remitted  to  him.  Wherefore,  dearly  beloved,  it 
is  our  opinion,  that  from  baptism,  and  the  grace  of 
God,  who  is  merciful,  kind,  and  benign  to  all,  none 
ought  to  be  prohibited  by  us,  which,  as  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served and  followed  with  resj)ect  to  all,  so  especially 
with  respect  to  infants,  and  those  that  are  but  just 
born,  who  deserve  our  help,  and  the  divine  mercy, 
because  at  the  first  instant  of  their  nativity,  they  beg 
it  by  their  cries  and  tears.' 

"  So  that  here  is  as  formal  a  synodical  decree  for 
the  baptism  of  infants,  as  possibly  can  be  expected, 
which,  being  the  judgment  of  a  synod,  is  more  au- 
thentic and  cogent  than  that  of  a  private  father,  it 
being  supposable  that  a  private  father  might  write 
his  own  particular  judgment  and  opinion,  but  the  de- 
termination of  a  synod  or  council  denotes  the  common 
practice  and  usage  of  the  whole  Church." 

With  such  testimony  before  us,  to  the  practice  of 
the  primitive  Church,  we  may  safely,  with  Lord  King, 
"  waive  "  the  testimonv  of  individual  fathers.     The 


220  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

facts  recorded  in  the  deliberations  of  this  council, 
are  decisive  of  the  whole  question.  Antipedobaptism 
is  certainly  a  novelty  ! 

We  give  the  following  singular  criticism  from  our 
reviewer,  being  entirely  willing  that  his  cause  should 
have  all  the  help  that  it  is  calculated  to  afford  it : 

"  Mr.  L.  says — '  Irenaeus  speaks  of  the  baptism  of 
infants,  little  ones,  and  children.'  It  is  well  Mr.  L. 
forgot  where  this  is  found.  Baumgarten  Crusius 
says  :  '  The  celebrated  passage  in  Irenaeus  is  not  to 
be  applied  to  infant  baptism ;  for  the  phrase  renasci 
per  eum  (i.  e.  Christum)  in  Deum,  evidently  means 
the  participation  of  all  in  his  divine  and  holy  nature, 
in  which  he  became  a  substitute  for  all.' " 

For  the  satisfaction  of  our  reviewer,  and  that  of  all 
concerned,  we  give  the  following  from  Taylor,  who 
quotes  the  Latin  of  Irenaeus,  and  translates  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Sanctifying  every  several  age  by  the  likeness 
it  has  to  him,  for  he  came  to  save  all  by  himself. 
All,  who  by  him  are  re-born  to  God  ;  infants,  and 
little  ones,  children  and  youths,  and  persons  of 
mature  age."  The  points  to  be  noticed  in  this  quo- 
tation from  Irenaeus,  are,  first,  the  classification: 
"  Infants,  little  ones,  children,  youths,  and  persons  of 
mature  age  " ;  second,  that  Christ  is  represented  as 
saving  all  these  five  classes ;  third,  that  infants,  as 
well  as  the  other  four  classes,  are  said  to  be  saved, 
sanctified,  re-born,  or  regenerated ;  and  that  the 
sane tili cation  and  regeneration  here  predicated  of 
infants,  meant,  or  included,  their  baptism,  according 
with  these  words  of  Jesus,  "  born  of  water,"  "  born 
of  the  Spirit"     Be  this  as  it  may,  it  is  quite  certain 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  221 

that  Irenseus  includes  infants,  with  the  other  four 
classes  in  the  church,  as  the  saved  and  sanctified  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  ;  and  this  is  sufficient,  for  this  being  the 
fact,  we  may  well  say  with  the  Apostle,  "  Can  any 
man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized," 
who  are  saved  and  sanctified  as  well  as  us  ?  Certain- 
ly Irenseus,  while  holding  these  views,  could  never 
forbid  their  baptism;  indeed,  it  was  by  baptism  that 
they  were  sanctified  or  consecrated  to  God,  and  it  is 
quite  certain  that  they  were  not  sanctified  and  saved, 
on  condition  of  their  believing ;  for  infants,  as  here 
distinguished  from  the  other  four  classes,  were  evi- 
dently incapable  of  believing.  It  will  be  observed, 
of  course,  that  we  do  not  quote  Irenseus  as  competent 
to  decide  whether  infants  should  be  baptized,  but 
only  as  bearing  testimony  to  the  belief  and  practice  of 
the  times. 

Speaking  of  Irenseus  as  the  disciple  of  Polycarp, 
who  was  the  disciple  of  the  apostle  John,  Mr.  Taylor 
has  the  following  reflections  upon  the  above  words  of 
this  ancient  father — "  Infants,  little  ones,  children, 
are  reborn  unto  God,  by  him,  sanctified  by  him,  says 
the  *  Faithful  Man,'  recording  his  testimony  for  the 
benefit  of  "  others  also.'  The  Law  shall  never  triurar>>> 
over  the  Gospel  in  its  tenderness  for  infants.  Does 
it  describe  little  ones  entering  into  covenant  with  God? 
Does  it  allow  little  children  to  enter  the  sacred  pre- 
cincts and  partake  of  the  most  holy  rites?  Does  it 
register  them  at  their  early  age  as  members  of  the 
holy  community  'among  the  living  in  Jerusalem?' 
Does  it  sanctify  them  to  the  Lord  as  Samuel  was 
sanctified  ?     So  does  the  Gospel.     '  He  came  to  save 


222  CHEISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

all  by  himself;' — 'Infants,  little  ones,  children, 
youths,  and  seniors  ; '  so  says  the  reverend  disciple; 
so  says  the  Apostolic  Master,  and  so  says  the  Divine 
Lord — Who  dake  gainsay  it?" 

For  my  part  I  more  than  ever  bless  and  trust  that 
Almighty  Savior  who  saves  infants,  little  ones,  children 
youths,  and  persons  of  mature  age,  even  all,  "  From  the 
least  to  the  greatest !"  And  with  the  council  of  Car- 
thage I  believe  "that  the  grace  of  God,  or  baptism 
should  be  given  to  all,  and  especially  to  infants." 
For  saying,  and  I  think  proving,  that  the  infant's 
claim  to  baptism  was  clearer  than  that  of  any  adult, 
my  reviewer  seemed  much  displeased,  and  charged 
me  with  braggadocio ;  he  may  now  extend  the  epithet 
to  the  council  of  Carthage,  the  sixty-six  bishops,  who 
asserted  the  same  thing,  where  Tertullian  mooted  his 
novel  and  silly  opinion,  and  almost  at  the  same  time! 
To  prevent  mistake,  and  misrepresentation,  we  again 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  we  do  not  refer  to  a 
council  any  more  than  to  an  individual,  as  affording 
authority  in  such  matters,  but  as  bearing  testimony 
to  the  belief  and  practice  of  their  times  and  the  times 
preceding  them. 

In  my  remarks  on  the  history  of  the  jailer's  con- 
version and  baptism,  I  made  some  criticisms  upon  the 
the  Greek  words  oikos  and  oikia,  and  in  support  of 
my  position  quoted  at  some  length  from  Taylor's 
Facts  and  Evidences ;  the  whole  may  be  seen  in  the 
work  under  review,  from  p.  118  to  p.  127.  In  his 
fourth  article,  which  is  the  last  in  the  dialogue  form, 
Mr.  O.  S.  glances  at  this  part  of  the  work,  and,  as 
usual,  soon   concludes  as  though  he  had  conquered 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST     REVIEW.  223 

\ 

every  opponent,  and  annihilated  every  argument. 
Although  he  has  not  entered  into  anything  like  an 
investigation  of  the  subject,  nor  even  attempted  any- 
thing like  a  well  digested  argument,  we  have  concluded 
to  notice  what  he  has  offered  as  argument. 

He  says,  "As  nearly  as  I  can  understand  Mr.  L.  he 
means  that  oikos  means  the  children  and  oikia  the  ser- 
vants or  slaves."  That  you  do  not  understand  is 
quite  evident,  if  one  may  judge  from  the  above  ;  but 
be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  quite  certain  we  are  not  fairly 
represented.  Though  oikia  may  include  the  family 
with  the  servants,  and  the  entire  establishment,  oikos 
does  not  include  the  servants,  but  the  family  only ; 
and  sometimes  it  is  used  to.  designate  the  family  resi- 
dence as  distinguished  from  other  buildings  in  the 
establishment,  while  oikia  may  include  with  such 
buildings  the  oikos,  or  family  residence,  also. 

In  addition  to  what  we  have  already  given  from 
Taylor,  as  explanatory  of  his  position,  and  as  ex- 
planatory of  our  own  position  on  this  subject,  we  now 
p-ive    the   following   from   the  facts    and    evidences. 

After  pointing  out  numerous  instances  wherein  the 
sacred  writers  distinguished  these  two  words  as  of 
different  import,  our  author  says,  "  With  all  these 
distinctions  and  diametrical  oppositions,  arc  these 
terms  interchangeable  in  their  proper  acceptation  ? 
Is  the  careful  distinction  preserved  by  the  evan- 
gelists, the  merely  casual  result  of  accident  ?  But 
oikos  is  a  masculine  noun,  while  oikia  is  feminine. 
How  long  have  nouns,  masculine  and  feminine,  beeu 
interchangeable  in  Greek?  Are  prince,  princess^ 
Jew,   Jewess,   tiger,    tigress,  &c,  interchangeable  in 


224:  CHRISTIAN    BAPTSM. 

English  ?  That  they  denote  the  same  genus  a-id  spe- 
cies, is  certain,  but  as  terms  in  language,  they  are  not 
interchangeable.  Neither  can  a  part  be  the  same  as 
the  whole,  or  be  interchangeable  with  it,  That  oikos 
really  is  a  part  of  oikia,  is  the  testimony  of  Hesy- 
chius,  and  of  Biel  repeating  him,"  page  32.  Again, 
"  It  is  proper  to  advert  again  specifically  to  these 
terms  in  connection  with  infant  baptism.  Aristotle 
says  that  oikia  means  both  '  bond  and  free.'  One 
passage  of  Scripture  afforded  the  most  proper  oppor- 
tunity to  include  a  servant  in  the  term  family,  John 
viii.  35  :  '  The  servant  abideth  not  in  the  oikia  for- 
ever, but  the  son  abideth  ever.'  Thus  the  son  is  a 
member  of  the  oikia,  but  the  servant  is  not  a  mem- 
ber of  the  oikos.  When  oikos  is  used  to  denote  a 
family,  the  connection  of  numbers  with  the  term 
forms  the  experimentwn  cruets  of  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  family,  oikos  and  oikia,  the  entire  estab- 
lishment, including  the  servants.  We  read  of  the 
oikos,  family  of  Noah,  consisting  of  eight  persons, 
being  saved  in  the  ark  ;  here  servants  are  evidently 
•excluded.  Genesis  vii.  1  ;  2  Peter  iii.  21.  So  we  read 
of  the  whole  oikos — family  of  Jacob,  that  went  down 
into  Egypt  with  him,  being  sixty-six.  persons.  Gen- 
esis xlvi.  26.  The  servants  are  excluded,  for  they 
amounted  to  some  hundreds.  Ahab  had  seventy  sons 
in  Samaria — lock  out  the  best,  and  fight  for  your  mas- 
ter's family — oikos.  That  the  seventy  express  in- 
fants by  the  term  oikos,  appears  from  the  following 
instances  :  Genesis  xviii.  19  ;  Genesis  xxxiv.  30  ;  Num- 
bers xviii.  91 ;  Deuteronomy  xi».  7,  xv.  20  ;  Deuteron- 
omy xiv.  26  ;   Deuteronomy  xxv.  9;    1  Samuel  ii.  33; 


EEPLY     TO     BAPTIST     REVIEW.  225 

2  Samuel  vii.  16,  18,  25,  27,  29  ;  1  Chronicle^xvii.  23, 
25  ;  Psalm  cxiii.  9.  When  Jacob  was  going  clown 
into  Egypt,  the  sacred  writer  informs  us  that  the 
number  of  his  sons  and  his  sons'  sons,  of  his  daugh- 
ters and  his  son's  daughters,  with  him,  was  sixty-six. 
He  then  mentions  particularly  the  two  souls  born  to 
Joseph  in  Egypt,  who  were  infants,  and  closes  by 
saying,  '  All  the  souls  of  the  house,  oikos,  of  Jacob, 
were  threescore  and  ten.'  The  phrase  '  all  the 
house,'  is  evidently  inapplicable  till  these  two  in- 
fants of  Joseph  are  included.  Omit  these,  the  term 
does  not  apply;  insert  them,  the  term  is  instantly  and 
correctly  applied.  The  term,  therefore,  expresses 
the  presence  of  those  infants.  Without  those  in- 
fants the  number  cannot  be  made  up.  The  sacred 
writer  waits  to  express  them  ;  and  then  all  the  house 
is  the  suitable  phrase.  This  passage  is  demonstrative 
of  the  presence  of  infants,  in  the  term  oikos ;  not 
merely  morally  or  grammatically,  but  by  means  of  the 
numbers,  mathematically  and  strictly  demonstrative. 
The  infants  are  here  expressed  in  the  term,  all  the 
house.  Neither  fraud  nor  force  can  eject  them." 
These  are  but  a  very  few  of  the  texts  quoted  by  this 
learned  author,  to  demonstrate  and  fix  the  meaning 
of  these  words,  oikos  and  oikia. 

To  corroborate  the  above  criticisms,  and  to  exclude 
even  the  possibility  of  misunderstanding  our  view  with 
regard  to  this  particular,  we  give  the  following  criti- 
cism of  Dr.  A.  Clarke,  on  the  Hebrew  word  beith, 
answering  to  the  Greek  word  oikos  :  "In  the  Pie- 
brew  language,  beith  signifies  both  a  house  and  a 
.Jamily ;  ben  a   son;  bath  a  daughter;  and   eben  a 


226  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

ston  \  Of  all  these  nouns,  banah,  he  built,  is,  I  be- 
lieve, the  common  root.  Now  as  beith,  a  house,  is 
built  of  abanim,  stones,  hence  banah,  he  built,  is  a 
proper  radix  for  the  stones  and  building ;  and  as 
beith,  a  family  (Psalm  Ixviii.  6),  is  constituted  or 
made  up  of  banim,  sons,  and  banoth,  daughters,  hence 
the  same  root  banah,  he  built,  is  common  to  all ;  for 
sons  and  daughters  build  up  or  constitute  a  family, 
as  stones  do  a  building."  So  exactly  is  the  Hebrew 
word  beith,  translated  by  the  Greek  word  oikos  ; 
and  so  accurate,  fixed  and  expressive,  is  the  meaning 
of  each  word,  that  to  exclude  infants  from  either,  is 
to  exclude  them  from  both  the  natural  and  the  spir- 
itual family,  and  do  the  utmost  violence,  both  to 
language  and  truth  !  See  Clarke's  Commentary,  1 
Peter  ii.  5. 

Speaking  of  the  fact  that  the  sacred  writers  use 
the  words  oikos  and  oikia  to  convey  distinct  ideas, 
and  of  the  additional  fact  that  oikos  is  used  as  in- 
cluding infants,  Mr.  Taylor  says,  "  The  more  learned 
Baptists  now  confess  that  ixfants  are  included  in  the 
term  oikos,  family,  as  used  in  the  New  Testament ; 
while  it  is  curious  to  observe  the  difficulties  to  which 
those  are  reduced  who  contend  that  infants  are  ex- 
cluded from  the  term  family,  and  that  the  word  must 
be  restricted  to  adults.  If  our  translators  had  em- 
ployed the  term  family  instead  of  the  words  house 
and  household,  the  sect  of  Baptists  never  would  have 
existed!" 

We  are  now  prepared  to  notice  the  texts  adduced 
by  our  reviewer,  to  prove  that  oikos  and  oikia  are  of 
synonymous  import,  and  that  the  sacred   writers  use 


EEPLY    TO    BAPTIST     REVIEW.  227 

them  interchangeably.  In  support  of  this  position, 
the  following  texts  are  quoted:  1  Corinthians  i.  1G, 
and  xvi.  15.  In  the  former  text  Paul  says  he  "bap- 
tized the  oikos  of  Stephanus  ;"  in  the  latter  he  speaks 
of  the  whole  household  as  being  the  first-fruits  of 
Achaia,  and  as  having  "  addicted  themselves  to  the 
ministry  of  the  saints."  Here,  therefore,  he  uses  the 
word  oikia,  because  the  particulars  here  specified  were 
true  of  the  whole  oiMa,  while  he,  Paul,  only  baptized 
the  oikos.  Hence  so  far  are  these  texts  from  proving 
that  these  words  are  used  synonymously,  that  they 
prove  the  very  reverse  ;  and  for  this  purpose  Taylor 
quotes  them.  The  next  texts  quoted  are  Luke  viii. 
41  and  51.  In  verse  41  we  are  told  that  "  Jairus  be- 
sought Jesus  that  he  would  come  into  his  oikos  ;"  and 
inverse  51,  we  read,  "and  when  he  came  into  the 
oikia,  he  suffered  no  man  to  go  in  "  to  the  family  res- 
idence proper,  where  the  lately  deceased  daughter 
lay.  Now  it  is  evident  that  Luke  here  makes  a  dis- 
tinction between  oikos  and  oikia,  for,  to  say  nothing 
of  his  inspiration,  Luke  was  a  scholar,  and  it  would 
be  highly  improper  to  represent  him  as  saying, 
"  When  he  came  into  the  oikos  he  suffered  no  man  to 
go  into  the  oikos  !"  Yet  our  reviewer  must  so  read 
it  to  make  the  text  favor  his  position.  Luke,  how- 
ever, uses  the  word  oikia  to  designate  the  outer 
court,  or  place,  beyond  which  "  the  multitude"  were 
not  allowed  to  accompany  Jesus.  Here  he  took  Pe- 
ter, James,  John,  and  the  father  and  mother  of  the 
maiden,  and  passing  from  the  oikia,  ho,  with  this  se- 
lect party,  entered  the  oikos  where  the  dead  body 
lay.     Thus  it  was  that  he  complied  with  the  request 


228  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

of  Jairus,  who  said,  " Come  into  my  oikos"  not  my 
oikia,  where  the  multitude  might,  and  did  come,  but 
were  not  permitted  to  enter  tne  oi/cos.  Hence  this 
text  also  proves  just  the  reverse  of  that  for  which  our 
reviewer  quotes  it.  The  next  text  produced  is  Luke 
x.  5  and  7.  In  the  last  text  quoted,  the  distinction 
wTas  between  what  was,  and  what  was  not,  the  oikos, 
or  family  residence  proper ;  here  the  distinction  is 
between  the  house,  or  dwelling,  of  whatever  kind, 
and  the  family  occupying  it.  Hence  the  disciples  are 
said  to  enter  the  oikia  and  invoke  blessings  upon  the 
oikos,  the  family  dwelling  in  it,  for  it  would  not  be 
proper  to  invoke  blessing  "upon  the  house,  or  place  of 
abode,  rather  than  upon  the  occupants  thereof.  A 
person  who  only  entered  the  outer  court  of  an  orien- 
tal residence,  would  be  said  to  enter  the  oikia,  but  he 
would  not  say,  peace  be  upon  this  oikia,  but  upon 
this  oikos. 

These  are  all  the  passages  presented  by  our  review- 
er in  support  of  his  position ;  viz.,  that  oikos  and 
oikia  always  mean  the  same  thing;  but  even  thes^ 
passages  prove  just  the  reverse  !  To  us,  indeed,  it 
seems  utterly  incredible  to  suppose  that  the  sacred 
writers  would  ever  and  anon  change  one  word  for  the 
other,  when  there  was  no  change  in  the  sense.  In 
conclusion,  we  will  simply  add,  that,  although  the 
doctrine  of  infant  baptism  is  abundantly  established 
without  the  help  which  is  derived  from  a  right  un- 
derstanding of  these  two  Greek  words,  yet,  believ- 
ing the  interpretation  here  given  to  be  the  right  in- 
terpretation, we  thought  it  might  serve  the  cause  of 
truth  to  defend  it. 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST     REVIEW.  229 

The  only  remaining  particular  worthy  of  notice,  in 
this  article,  is  the  following  :  "  Infant  baptism  can 
not  be  traced  higher  than  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  and  even  then,  it  was  not  universal."  Here 
it  is  conceded  that  infant  baptism  was  all  but  univer- 
sal some  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle 
John,  and  while  it  is  assumed  that  some  did  not  then 
practice  it,  no  one  can  tell  who,  or  where  they  were, 
nor  can  one  council,  church,  or  individual  be  specified 
as  having  opposed  the  practice  as  being  unscriptural ; 
nor  did  the  German  fanatics  do  so,  for  they  despised 
the  Scriptures,  and  claimed  to  have  had  their  teaching 
by  a  late  revelation  ;  nay,  one  of  their  leaders  said,  "I 
am  the  beginning  of  baptism."  He  who  can  believe 
that  such  an  innovation  could  become  all  but  univer- 
sal some  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle 
John,  and  that  without  known  opposition,  yea,  Avith- 
out  knowing  when,  where,  or  by  whom  it  commenced, 
cannot  be  said  to  be  an  intelligent  believer ;  and  to 
require  any  man  to  believe  this,  is  to  require  him  to 
believe  what  is  utterly  unreasonable  !  Let  them  be- 
lieve it  who  can,  I  cannot.  At  any  rate,  we  hope  such 
believers  will  not  again  tell  us  that  infant  baptism  is 
a  popish  invention ! 

Our  reviewer  is  now  evidently  exhausted  and  irri- 
tated. His  next  article  is  characterized  by  personal- 
ities, repetitions,  assertions,  and  contradiction.  For 
instance,  he  now  says  infant  baptism  "  cannot  be 
traced  to  within  two  or  three  centuries  of  the  plant- 
ing of  the  Christian  Church."  In  the  previous  arti- 
cle, it  will  be  remembered,  he  found  the  practice 
almost  universal  in  "  the  middle   of  the  second  cen- 


230  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

tury  !"  He  tells  us,  too,  that  Chrysostom  complained 
that  most  persons  neglected  to  baptize  their  children, 
and  that  "  Jerome  speaks  of  those  who  refused  to 
give  baptism  to  their  children."  Yes,  and  they  might 
have  told  us  of  many  who  neglected  their  own  salva- 
tion, as  well  as  that  of  their  children ;  neglected  the 
sacrament  of  the  supper,  as  well  as  that  of  baptism  ; 
and  positively  and  knowingly  disobeyed  God  in  many 
other  ways,  and  yet  did  not  deny  that  God  in  his 
word  enjoined  what  they  neglected  or  refused.  Nor 
is  it  any  better  now.  Such  characters  are  still  to  be 
found  in  abundance,  and,  in  consequence  hereof,  good 
men  still  complain,  as  did  Chrysostom  and  Jerome. 
So  that  here  is  nothing  against  our  position,  but  much 
in  favor  of  it,  if  those  fathers  complained  as  here 
stated. 

I  said  I  believed  history  did  not  furnish  an  instance 
of  a  single  society  of  Christians  having  opposed  in- 
fant baptism  as  being  unscriptural,  or  even  of  one 
individual  doing  so,  till  it  was  done  by  the  German 
fanatics  of  the  sixteenth  century.  I  also  quoted  Mr. 
Baxter,  who  asserts  the  same  thing.  In  reply  to  all 
this,  our  reviewer  gives  the  following  pointed  reply : 

"  The  state  of  that  man's  heart  and  conscience, 
who  can  make  such  statements — and  make  them  in 
the  face  of  known  facts — is  not  very  enviable,  to  say 
the  least.  Mr.  Baxter  we  may  excuse  ;  he  may  never 
have  informed  himself  as  to  what  writers  had  said 
previous  to  the  time  he  specifies,  and  so  have  been 
honest  and  truthful  in  his  statement ;  ( !  )  but  not  so 
Mr.  Levington,  who  mentions  Tertullian,  a  warm 
opposer." 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST     REVIEW.  231 

No,  sir;  Mr.  L.  did  not  say,  or  believe,  that  even 
Tertullian  was  an  exception,  for  I  do  not  find  that  he 
ever  opposed  infant  baptism  as  being  unscriptural ; 
hence  we  recognize  his  peculiar  teaching  with  regard 
to  infant  baptism  as  favoring  our  position,  for  we  think 
he  would  have  said  that  the  practice  was  unscriptural 
if  he  had  so  believed,  and  we  think  he  would  have 
said  that  it  was  a  novelty  if  that  had  been  the  fact ; 
but  he  has  not  said  either  one  or  the  other ;  hence  my 
heart  may  not  be  quite  as  bad  as  you  represent  it  to 
be !  On  the  other  hand,  you  do  us  too  much  honor 
when  you  represent  us  as  being  better  informed  than 
Mr.  Baxter,  that  is  really  too  much  of  a  good  thing ! 
Moreover,  you,  too,  fail  to  find  in  history  such  an  in- 
stance of  opposition  to  infant  baptism  as  that  .which 
I  said  could  not  be  found ;  yes,  sir,  you  have  utterly 
failed  to  produce  a  single  instance.  Hence  we  must 
still  leave  the  origin  of  tour  kind  of  opposition  to 
infant  baptism,  where  we  before  leftit;  viz.,  with  the 
German  fanatics! 

In  his  next  article  we  find  our  reviewer  makes 
another  attempt  to  find  the  first  Antipedobaptist 
Society,  or  individual,  so  long  sought  for.  The 
attempt  is  singular.  He  commences  thus,  "  John  the 
Revelator  says,  Chap.  xii.  6 — '  And  the  woman  fled 
into  the  wilderness,  where  she  had  a  place  prepared 
of  God.'"  The  argument  which  he  attempts  to 
adduce  from  this  text  is  briefly  this  ;  the  Antipedo- 
baptist Church  being  the  true  church,  the  "  pure 
secession,"  and  she  being  "  obliged  to  flee  into  the 
wilderness  to  hide  from  persecution,  and  thus  perpet- 
uate   her  existence,"  it  becomes   difficult  to  find  the 


232  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

first  Antipedobaptist  Society,  it  being,  in  this  way, 
"hid  in  the  depths  of  antiquity!"  Still,  however, 
he  seems  to  think  that  the  search  is  not  quite  a  hope- 
less one  ;  hence  he  proceeds  thus,  being  determined 
to  find  the  first  Antipedobaptist  Society — "But  who 
were  the  '  Pure  Secession  ?  '  Who  fled  into  the  wil- 
derness? They  were  the  Novatians — the  Donatists, 
or  Puritans^  as  they  were  sometimes  called."  In 
proof  of  this  he  adds,  amongst  other  things,  the  fol- 
lowing: "  And  'Fuller, the  English  church  historian 
asserts,  that  the  Baptists  in  England,  in  his  days, 
were  the  Donatists  new  dipped,'  while  Robinson 
declares  they  were  Trinitarian  Anabaptists."  Really 
our  Antipedobaptist  friends  seem  to  have  hard  work 
to  find  their  parents,  and  they  seem  ready  to  acknowl- 
edge as  such  almost  any  one  rather  than  confess  their 
true  parents,  the  German  fanatics  ;  nay,  they  would 
even  prefer  to  remain  without  any  known  parents  ; 
and  we  can  sympathize  with  them  in  their  extreme 
difficulty,  but  we  cannot  help  them,  for  they  must 
acknowledge  these  same  German  Antipedobaptists  as 
their  parents,  or  go  without  any  !  True  they  may 
adopt  others,  but  they  will  not  be  their  true  parents, 
they  will  only  be  adopted  parents  at  the  best,  who,  if 
they  were  living,  would  not  acknowledge  them  for 
their  children ! 

But  let  us  now  make  some  inquiry  with  regard  to 
these  newly-adopted  parents,  the  Novatians  and  the 
Donatists.  "  The  Novatians,"  says  Bishop  Hurd, 
"  were  a  numerous  sect  of  heretics,  who  sprang  up 
about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  and  were  so 
called    from   one  Novatian,    a   presbyter    at   Rome. 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  233 

Cornelius  having  been  elected  bishop,  Novatian  was 
so  enraged  that  himself  had  not  been  preferred  that 
he  endeavored  to  blacken  the  character  of  Cornelius,  by- 
charging  him  with  showing  too  much  lenity  to  those  who 

had  apostatized   during  the  persecution Nay,  he 

went  so  far  as  to  assert,  that  an  apostate  never  could  be 
forgiven  throughout  all  eternity;  which  so  terrified  those 
who  had  lapsed,  that  they  returned  again  to  paganism. 
He  was  equally  severe  to  those  who  married  a  second 
time,  declaring  them  guilty  of  the  unpardonable  sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost."  He  also  says,  "They  re- 
baptized  all  such  of  the  orthodox  as  joined  their 
party."  He  adds,  finally,  "  but  they  are  not  men- 
tioned after  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century."  Lord 
King  finds  Novatian  at  Rome,  A.  D.  252. 

Now  let  us  inquire  after  the  other  adopted  parent, 
or  ancestor,  of  our  modern  Antipedobaptists,  Mr. 
Donatus.  Of  this  man  and  his  followers  we  furnish 
the  following  particulars  from  Bishop  Hurd. 

"  Another  numerous  sect  of  heretics  who  made  a 
great  figure  in  the  world,  particularly  in  Africa, 
where  they  flourished  many  years,  were  called  Dona- 
tists,  and  took  their  first  rise  about  the  beginning  of 
the  fourth  century,  a  few  years  before  Constantine 
the  Great  ascended  the  throne. 

"Donatus,  their  founder,  was  a  Numidian  bishop, 
but  being  a  man  of  a  turbulent  disposition,  he  was 
hated  by  his  people,  which  induced  him  to  seek  an 
opportunity  of  leaving  them,  and  settling  in  some 
other  place.  Just  about  that  time  the  Bishop 
of  Carthage  died,  and  as  there  was  to  be  a  fresh 
election,  he  offered  himself  a  candidate.  But  the 
20 


234  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

people  having  had  an  account  of  his  character  trans- 
mitted to  them,  he  was  unanimously  rejected;  and 
his  own  people  having  chosen  another  bishop,  his 
passions  were  so  much  irritated,  that  he  resolved 
to  separate  himself  from  the  Catholic  Church. 
....As  this  heretic,  like  all  others  of  the  same 
character,  had  separated  himself  from  the  ortho- 
dox church,  so  he  taught  that  baptism  administered 
by  any  but  those  of  his  own  party  was  invalid.  In 
this  he  was  much  countenanced  by  some  disputes 
which  had  taken  place  in  the  church  about  fifty  years 
before  he  made  his  appearance.  It  had  been  agitat- 
ed in  several  councils  or  synods,  that  the  person  bap- 
tized by  a  heretic  must  be  re-baptized,  but  the  ortho- 
dox party  always  opposed  this  notion.  And  there 
being  at  that  time  many  persons  in  Africa  who  were 
not  well  grounded  in  the  principles  of  relig- 
ion, they  greedily  embraced  this  doctrine,  and  in  con- 
sequence thereof  the  Donatists  became  extremely 
powerful. ..  .They  excommunicated  all  the  ortho- 
dox as  heretics  who  had  denied  the  faith ;  and 
taking  advantage  of  the  troubles  which  then  reigned 
in  Africa,  they  were  so  audacious  as  to  put  those  to 
death  who  differed  from  them  in  sentiments .... 
In  this  manner  they  continued  to  flourish  long- 
er than  any  sect  we  have  hitherto  mentioned;  for 
we  have  some  instances   of  their   existence    so   late 

as     the    seventh     century At    last   they     were 

swallowed  up  in  that  flood  of  errors  which  overspread 
the  Romish  Church."  Speaking  of  the  Circumcellians 
our  historian  says,  "  Soon  after  the  Donatists  had 
established  churches  and  ordained  bishops  in  Africa, 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  235 

a  new  sect  sprung  up  among  those  heretics,  called 
Circumcellians,  and  they  were  the  most  horrid  of  any 
we  have  yet  mentioned.  They  had  no  fixed  abode, 
but  rambled  up  and  down  the  provinces  begging  or 
rather  exacting  a  support  from  the  people  in  the  coun- 
try. They  exercised  all  sorts  of  cruelty,  and  treated 
every  one  they  met  with  in  the  most  brutal  manner. 
....  They  proceeded  so  far  as  to  lay  violent  hands 
on  themselves,  in  hopes  of  obtaining  the  crown  of 
martyrdom.  This  they  did  several  ways,  but  the 
most  common  was,  by  throwing  themselves  down 
from  precipices,  drowning  themselves  in  rivers,  or 
burning  themselves  to  death.  They  never  hanged 
themselves,  because  Judas  took  that  method  of  de- 
stroying himself."  Concerning  these  "  madmen,"  as 
the  doctor  calls  them,  numerous  other  particulars  are 
recorded,  many  of  which  are  taken  from  the  eclesias- 
tical  historian,  Theodoret.  As  a  kind  of  episode  we 
give  the  following:  "A  company  of  Circumcellians 
met  a  young  man  of  wit  and  courage,  and  presenting 
him  with  a  sword,  ordered  him  to  plunge  it  into  their 
hearts  (it  was  common  for  them  to  beg  others  to  kill 
them),  or  they  would  put  him  to  immediate  death. 
He  did  not  refuse,  but  told  them,  that  perhaps  when 
he  had  killed  a  few  of  them,  the  others  would  repent 
and  fall  upon  and  dispatch  him ;  hence,  he  begged 
they  would  first  suffer  him  to  bind  their  hands  and 
feet,  aud  then  he  would  do  as  they  desired.  They 
consented  to  this  and  suffered  themselves  to  be 
bound,  which  was  no  sooner  done,  than  the  young 
man  lashed  them  all  with  a  whip,  left  them,  and  went 
away."     See  Hurd's  History  of  Religions,  published 


236  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

by  J.  Gleave,  Manchester,  I  think,  1813;  the  title 
page  with  date,  is  gone.  Pp.  152,  155,  158.  Our 
reviewer  also  mentions  the  Paulicians  and  the  Pater- 
ines,  as  being  among  the  ancestors  of  the  Antipedo- 
baptists ;  but  as  he  quotes  no  authority  in  support  of 
what  he  says  concerning  them,  and  we  are  entirely 
ignorant  of  them,  we  must  leave  them  with  him  for 
what  they  are  worth. 

It  is  only  necessary  to  make  a  very  few  remarks 
with  regard  to  these  newly-adopted  parents  of  the 
Antipedobaptists.  And,  first,  as  it  is  admitted  that 
the  practice  of  infant  baptism  was  all  but  universal 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  it  will  be 
seen  that  Novatian  did  not  exist  till  about  one  hun- 
dred years  after ;  while  Donatus  did  not  exist  till 
about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  ;  hence,  ac- 
cording to  the  showing  of  our  reviewer,  the  practice 
of  infant  baptism  was  all  but  universal  at  least  one 
hundred  years  before  the  parents  of  Antipedobaptism 
had  an  existence !  Second,  history  does  not  show 
that  Novatian,  Donatus,  or  their  followers,  ever  once 
objected  to  infant  baptism  ;  at  least,  the  history  that 
I  have  read,  does  not,  though  it  gives  all  other  par- 
ticulars concerning  them  ;  nor  does  it  record  a  word 
of  controversy  with  regard  to  their  mode  of  baptism; 
nor  does  it  say  what  their  mode  o£  baptism  was ; 
nor  does  our  reviewer  quote  a  word  of  history  with 
regard  to  these  particulars;  so  that  these  heretics 
and  their  followers  afford  no  help  to  the  Antipedo- 
baptists. To  the  Anabaptists  they  seem  to  afford 
some  help,  but  in  reality  they  do  not ;  for  although 
they  re-baptized  their  proselytes,  as  do  their  professed 


REPLY    TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  237 

followers  of  the  present  day,  yet  it  was  not  because 
they  objected  to  the  mode  of  their  former  baptism, 
bnt  because  they  did  not  recognize  the  orthodox,  or 
any  others,  as  having  any  right  to  baptize,  claiming, 
as  they  did,  that  themselves,  and  themselves  only, 
were  the  church.  But  this  preposterous  dogma  was 
evidently  adopted  to  gain  proselytes  and  build  up 
their  party ;  and  in  this  we  acknowledge  their  re- 
semblance to  modern  Anabaptists!  Now,  when  in 
connection  herewith,  we  consider  the  other  absurdi- 
ties which  they  held,  together  with  their  origin, 
character  and  end,  we  think  it  would  have  been  quite 
as  honorable  if  our  Antipedobaptist  friends  had  ac- 
knowledged their  true  ancestors,  Munzer,  Grebel, 
Blaurock  and  company.  At  any  rate,  they  are  wel- 
come to  all  the  support  that  they  can  obtain  from  No- 
vatian,  Donatus  and  their  followers.  And  still  the 
question  remains  unanswered.  If  there  was  an  An- 
tipedobaptist society  before  the  German  fanatics, 
please  tell  us  when,  where  and  who !  And  it  is  quite 
certain,  that  on  this  Western  Continent  there  was  no 
Anabaptist  Church  till  Ezekiel  Holliman,  a  layman, 
plunged  Roger  Williams,  after  which  Roger  plunged 
Ezekiel  and  several  others.  Now  wre  have  only  to 
say,  that  for  this  people,  with  these  showings,  to 
claim,  as  they  do,  that  they  are  the  only  Church,  is, 
to  say  the  very  least,  simply  ridiculous. 

I  have_c-ar$fully  read  the  two  remaining  articles, 
and,  strange  as  it  irray  appear,  I  find  nothing  that 
deserves  notice  here.  The  writer  seems  perfectly 
exhausted,  and  much  out  of  temper  withal.  Hence 
we  have  repetition  and   assertion  in  abundance,  to- 


238  CHEISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

gether  with  nmeh  irrelevant  matter,  and  not  a  little 
small  talk,  which,  it  will  be  remembered,  I  promised 
not  to  notice. 

It  will  be  seen  that  onr  reviewer  has  even  passed 
unnoticed  those  parts  of  the  work  in  which,  more 
especially,  I  assail,  and,  it  is  believed,  overturn,  the 
very  foundations  upon  which  his  system  rests  ;  or,  if 
he  has  notioed  them,  his  remarks,  for  the  most  part, 
are  either  irrelevant  or  trifling.  For  instance,  let  any 
one  read  Chapters  III.,  IV.,V.,YIII.  and  IX.,  and  then 
look  at  the  review  and  see  what  is  said  in  reply;  or, 
rather,  see  how  these  chapters  are  passed  by  !  Nor 
has  he  attempted  to  meet  the  arguments  which  I  em- 
ploy to  show  that  it  is  simply  impossible  to  plunge 
under  water  all  persons,  in  all  countries,  seasons  and 
climates.  He  has  not  so  much  as  attempted  to  prove 
the  thing  to  be  right,  humane,  practicable,  and  God- 
like !  And  no  marvel,  he  dare  not !  Why  then  rep- 
resent God  Almighty  as  absolutely  enjoining  that 
which  implies  all  this  ? 

Finally,  it  may  be  well  to  notice  one  more  state- 
ment which  Antipedobaptists  frequently  make  with 
an  air  of  triumph ;  viz.,  this,  "  We  will  have  no  in- 
ference, give  us  a  positive  command."  Now,  al- 
though our  position  does  not  depend  upon  inference 
for  support,  we  beg  to  say  that  no  man  can  de- 
clare the  whole  counsel  of  God,  or  even  under- 
stand it,  without  inference.  Nay,  more  ;  we  do  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  necessary  inference,  both  in  re- 
ligion and  in  other  matters,  is  sometimes  more  con- 
clusive and  convincing  to  the  human  mind  than  is  a 
mere   statement  of  the  truth !     To   show,  however, 


REPLY   TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  230 

that  inference  is  not  only  right,  but  even  unavoida- 
ble, a  few  remarks  will  be  entirely  sufficient.  For  in- 
stance ;  the  offer  of  liberty  implies  the  bondage  of 
the  party  to  whom  such  offer  is  made ;  the  offer  of 
pardon  implies  the  guilt  and  condemnation  of  the 
party  to  whom  that  offer  is  made ;  the  offer  of  life 
implies  the  death  of  the  party  to  whom  such  offer  is 
made  ;  the  offer  of  eyesight  implies  blindness ;  the 
offer  of  instruction  implies  ignorance  ;  the  offer  of 
cleansing  implies  impurity  ;  the  offer  of  strength  im- 
plies weakness ;  the  offer  of  mercy  implies  unwor- 
thiness ;  the  offer  of  a  free  gift  implies  that  the  re- 
cipient thereof  has  not  merited,  or  given  an  equivalent 
for  that  free  gift;  and  refuge  intelligently  offered 
implies  the  exposure  of  the  party  to  whom  it  is  of- 
fered. In  all  these,  and  in  numerous  other  instances, 
the  inference  is  legitimate  and  necessary.  Nor  will 
it  do  to  plead  the  importance  of  a  doctrine  or  prac- 
tice, as  making  it  an  exception  to  this  rule;  for  if  the 
inference  is  a  necessary  one,  that  fact  remains  the 
same,  whether  the  thing  inferred  be  of  great  or  of 
little  importance  !  Moreover,  some  of  the  greatest 
doctrines  in  the  Bible  are  presented  to  us  as  being 
necessarily  inferred.  For  instance  ;  the  doctrine  of 
a  separate  state,  of  a  future  state  of  life  and  happi- 
ness, is  thus  presented  to  us  by  our  blessed  Lord, 
who  infers  the  happy  existence  of  Abraham  from  the 
declaration,  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,"  for,  he 
adds,  "  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the 
living."  And  he  adopts  this  method,  rather  than 
that  of  simply  declaring  the  fact,  for  the  conviction 
of  the  infidel  Sadducees.     In  like   manner,   Paul  in- 


240  CHEISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

fors  the  death  of  universal  mankind,  from  the  fact 
that  Christ  died  for  all ;  for,  says  he,  "  We  thus 
judge,"  or  infer,  "that  if  one  died  for  all,  then  were 
all  dead."  It  is  folly,  then,  and  worse  than  folly,  to 
say,  "  We  will  have  no  inference !" 

But  above  all  people,  it  ill  becomes  the  Anabap- 
tists to  say,  "  We  will  have  no  inference,"  for,  as 
we  have  shown,  their  whole  system  rests  upon  mere 
inference;  they  cannot  produce  one  clear  text, 
much  less  a  thus  sayeth  the  Lord.  And  yet,  though 
they  are  wholly  depending  upon  inference  for  the 
very  existence  of  their  system,  they  are  ever  and 
anon  crying  out,  "  We  will  have  no  inference !" 
Just  as  well  might  they  tell  us  that  they  will  have  no 
fact,  for  inference  frequently  has  all  the  certainty  of 
fact;  for  instance,  if  it  is  certain  that  there  is  now  an 
Antipedobaptist  society,  it  is  equally  certain  that 
that  society  had  a  beginning,  or  that  it  is  from  ever- 
lasting. Now  it  is  evident  that  this  inference  comes 
to  us  with  all  the  certainty  of  the  fact  from  which  it 
is  derived.  Again,  If  an  Antipedobaptist  society 
now  exists,  and  no  such  society  existed  before  that 
of  the  German  fanatics,  but  has  existed  ever  since,  it 
follows  that  the  latter  is  the  offspring  of  the  for- 
mer. To  admit  the  fact,  and  yet  deny  the  necessary 
inference,  is  folly,  for  the  one  is  as  certain  as  the  oth- 
er. In  short,  you  might  as  well  say  we  will  have  no 
fact,  as  say  we  will  have  no  inference  !  We  hope, 
therefore,  that  self-respect,  if  nothing  else,  will  in- 
duce Anabaptists  and  others  to  discontinue  the  silly 
statement,  "  We  will  have  no  inference,"  for  it  is 
equal  to  saying,  we  will  have  no  logic,  no  reasoning, 


REPLY   TO    BAPTIST    REVIEW.  241 

no  judgment,  no  wisdom,  no  facts  •  yea,  and  no  in- 
telligent practice,  for  what  is  right  practice,  or  wis- 
dom, but  the  right  use  of  knowledge;  in  other 
words,  the  right  inference  drawn  from  the  facts  ad- 
mitted. We  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  inference  is 
essential  to  our  very  existence  !  For  instance  ;  I  am 
sleepy,  T  infer  I  should  sleep  ;  I  am  weary,  I  infer  I 
should  rest;  I  am  hungry,  i  infer  I  should  eat ;  I  am 
thirsty,  I  infer  I  should  drink  ;  and  I  sleep,  rest,  eat 
and  drink  accordingly,  and  if  I  do  not  thus  infer  and. 
act,  I  shall  die,  that  is  all !  Just  so  necessary  is  in- 
ference to  the  continuance  of  natural  life.  And  it  is 
equally  necessary  to  the  continued  existence  of  the 
Antipedobaptist,  or  Anabaptist  denomination ;  for 
their  whole  system,  as  we  have  shown,  rests,  or  de- 
pends, upon  inference.  Therefore,  they  are  the  last 
people  who  should  say,  "We  will  have  no  infer- 
ence !"  Nor  would  we  object  if  their  inferences 
were  necessarily  drawn  from  appropriate  facts  or 
principles.  But,  alas  !  this  is  far  from  being  the  case  ; 
for  their  inferences,  upon  which  they  rest  their  mode 
of  baptism,  and  that  by  which  they  claim  to  be  the 
only  church,  as  also  that  by  which  they  exclude  in- 
fants from  Christian  baptism,  are  so  far  from  being 
necessarily  drawn,  that  they  are  entirely  illegitimate, 
as  we  have  abunduntly  proved.  Indeed,  sometimes 
the  inference  is  drawn  from  an  inference,  and  both 
without  warrant  or  plausibility.  For  instance,  they 
assume,  for  it  is  not  proved,  that  John  and  Philip 
went  into  the  water ;  and  from  this  they  infer  that 
the  parties  baptized  by  them  were  plunged  under  the 
water  ;  and  from  this  they  again  infer  that  no  one  is 
21 


242  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

baptized  that  is  not  plunged  under  the  water,   and 
then  they  cry  out,  "  We  will  have  no  inference  !" 

Again.  Philip  said  to  "  a  man  of  Ethiopia,"  "  If 
thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest  be 
baptized,"  and  Jesus  said,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world, 
and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  •creature  ;  he  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned  "  ;  and  from  this  they 
infer  that  the  infant,  as  well  as  the  Ethiopian,  and 
those  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  preached,  must  also  be- 
lieve or  remain  unbaptized  ;  and  with  equal  proprie- 
ty they  might  infer  that  it  must  believe  or  be  damned ! 
And  after  thus  inferring,  they  again  cry  out,  y  We 
will  have  no  inference  !"  Once  more.  They  say  we 
were  plunged  under  water,  and  from  this  they  infer 
that  they  only  were  baptized  ;  and  from  this  last  in- 
ference they  again  infer  that  they  only  are  the  church, 
and  beside  them  there  is  no  Church  of  God  upon  the 
earth  !  And  again  they  cry  out,  "  We  will  have  no 
inference !"  And  there  we  leave  them  alone  in  their 
glory. 


